Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What specific regulations define 'professional' versus 'non-professional' degrees in U.S. Department of Education guidance?
Executive summary
The Department of Education (ED) has proposed and circulated a new, narrower definition of “professional degree” tied to implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), using criteria such as whether a program “awards a professional degree,” has a 4‑digit CIP code, and includes a path to licensure — changes that would exclude many fields formerly treated as professional (examples cited include nursing, social work, public health, audiology, and speech‑language pathology) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting and stakeholder statements show this is part of negotiated rulemaking to implement statutory loan caps and legacy provisions rather than an ancient, standalone regulatory text that newly invented the distinction [5] [4].
1. What regulation the Department cites as its baseline
ED points back to an existing regulatory definition in 34 C.F.R. § 668.2 (the “General Definitions” regulation first framed decades ago) as a historical baseline for what counts as a professional degree, and ED officials say their interpretation aligns with that precedent even while narrowing its application for OBBBA implementation [4]. News outlets reporting on ED statements note the agency claims “a consistent definition … that aligns with historical precedent” [6].
2. What the new or proposed criteria are
During the RISE negotiated rulemaking to implement OBBBA, ED circulated proposed language and a working definition that treats a “professional student” as one enrolled in a program that awards a professional degree and then used more specific criteria: completion of academic requirements “for beginning practice,” a level of skill beyond the bachelor’s degree, presence of a 4‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code, and a path to licensure — any one or more of these elements is being used to determine whether a program is “professional” for loan‑limit purposes [1] [5]. Stakeholders report ED’s proposal would exclude certain degrees long treated as professional, such as MPHs, DNPs, MSWs, audiology and SLP programs [2] [3] [4].
3. Which specific programs stakeholders say are affected
Multiple organizations and outlets document that ED’s proposed implementation would exclude or reclassify fields that have historically been treated as professional: nursing (MSN, DNP), social work (MSW, DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH), physician assistant, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, counseling/therapy, and some education and business programs — with press and trade groups flagging those lists as outcomes of the proposed definition tied to OBBBA loan caps [4] [7] [8] [3].
4. Why these definitional changes matter for students
Under OBBBA, loan limits differ by whether a student is in a “professional degree” program: professional students receive higher annual and aggregate borrowing caps (noted in reporting as an annual $50,000 and lifetime $200,000 cap for professional students under the statute referenced by commentators), so ED’s narrower interpretation effectively reduces how much federal borrowing students in excluded programs can access [4]. Advocacy groups warn that excluding certain programs could limit graduate access and workforce pipelines in healthcare, education and social services [1] [2].
5. Disputes and alternative viewpoints
ED officials publicly disputed characterizations that the agency “stopped counting” entire fields as professional, saying its approach is consistent with long‑standing federal language and that some news reports misstate the agency’s intent [6]. Conversely, professional associations (e.g., Council on Social Work Education, public health and audiology organizations) describe the proposal as a practical exclusion of their fields and warn of downstream workforce harm [1] [2] [3]. Trade reporting from NASFAA shows ED presented a specific proposal in negotiated rulemaking and that negotiators raised concerns about definitional breadth and use across statutes [5].
6. What is explicitly documented in the provided reporting — and what is not
The provided reporting documents ED’s proposed and negotiated rulemaking language, stakeholder reactions, and which degree programs are reported excluded under the proposed approach [4] [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention the full, final regulatory text of an ED rule published in the Code of Federal Regulations that permanently redefines “professional degree” beyond the negotiated proposals (not found in current reporting). They also do not provide verbatim, finalized regulatory language adopted as an authoritative CFR amendment beyond ED’s citation to 34 C.F.R. § 668.2 as precedent [4] [5].
7. Practical next steps for readers who want to track the outcome
Follow ED’s negotiated‑rulemaking notices and the Federal Register for any final regulatory language implementing OBBBA and the department’s professional‑degree definition (ED presented its proposal in RISE sessions reported by NASFAA) [5]. Monitor statements and coalition letters from professional associations (e.g., CSWE, public health groups, ASHA) for technical challenges and advocacy updates that signal whether the proposed exclusions will survive final rulemaking [1] [2] [3].
Limitations: This analysis relies solely on the provided reporting about ED’s negotiated proposals, stakeholder reactions, and press summaries; the exact final regulatory wording in the CFR (if any) is not contained in these sources and therefore is not quoted here [4] [5].