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.
Which specific programs are listed as professional degrees by the DOE (e.g., JD, MD, DDS, PharmD)?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s recently proposed definition of “professional degree” narrows the list to a core set of programs (about 11 primary fields and some doctoral programs) used to determine higher graduate loan limits, and it explicitly omits several degrees that many professional groups expect to be included — notably nursing, public health, audiology and speech‑language pathology (examples cited across reporting) [1] [2] [3]. Multiple outlets and associations report that the DOE’s working list includes traditional items like law and medicine but excludes other health and service fields, a change that could shift annual loan caps from roughly $50,000 for “professional” programs to about $20,500 for others [4] [1] [5].
1. What the DOE says — a shorter “professional” list tied to loan rules
The Education Department’s negotiated draft regulations to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA / H.R.1) would limit which graduate programs count as “professional degree” programs for the purpose of higher federal loan limits; the RISE committee reportedly agreed to recognize only 11 primary programs plus some doctoral programs as professional degrees under that framework [1]. Reporting and institutional notes indicate the change is aimed at aligning loan eligibility and caps created by the new law — with professional students eligible for the higher annual/lifetime limits set in the statute [4] [1].
2. Which commonly cited programs remain on the traditional list — law, medicine, veterinary, theology
The regulatory definition the DOE is revisiting has long used examples — law (JD), medicine (MD), dentistry (DDS/DMD), and veterinary medicine — as paradigmatic “professional degrees,” and the new process appears to preserve that core group while narrowing the broader set of examples [6] [4]. Multiple news pieces and organizations note that H.R.1 itself referred back to the existing regulatory definition, and the DOE’s draft narrows the list of programs that will get the higher loan status [2] [4].
3. Major exclusions reported: nursing, public health, audiology, speech-language pathology, many allied health fields
National associations and news outlets report the DOE proposal would exclude graduate nursing (MSN, DNP), public health (MPH, DrPH), audiology and speech‑language pathology, physician assistants, occupational/physical therapy, and several counseling and social‑work doctorates from the “professional” list — a move that nursing and public‑health groups say will reduce their students’ loan access [7] [2] [3]. Newsweek and USAToday summarize that many graduate programs commonly treated as professional credentials are not on the working list, prompting industry pushback [4] [8].
4. Why this matters financially: different loan caps for “professional” vs. other graduate students
Under the enacted law discussed in reporting, students in programs classified as “professional” would remain eligible for the higher loan amounts — reporting cites an annual limit of about $50,000 and a lifetime cap near $200,000 for those programs — while students in excluded programs face lower caps (reporting cites about $20,500 annual for non‑professional graduate programs) [7] [4]. Several nursing and higher‑education outlets say the reclassification could sharply limit financing for advanced practice and doctoral pathways [5] [3].
5. Who is objecting and why — professional groups warn workforce impacts
Industry groups — e.g., American Association of Colleges of Nursing, Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, ASHA (audiology & speech) and research university associations — have publicly criticized the draft definition, arguing it ignores precedent that treated these degrees as professional credentials and could weaken pipelines for critical health and education workforces [3] [2] [1]. These organizations frame their objections around access, equity and workforce readiness [3] [5].
6. Competing frames in reporting — implementation vs. definition precision
Some coverage emphasizes the DOE is implementing statutory loan changes and attempting to define a clear regulatory boundary (an administrative, technical exercise), while other coverage and commentators treat the change as a substantive policy decision that downgrades entire professions’ status and funding access. Advocacy pieces and opinion pieces further interpret motives and longer‑term consequences differently — some see budgetary control and standardization; others see ideological or workforce‑harm implications [9] [10] [11].
7. Limits of available reporting and what’s not found
Available sources confirm the DOE’s working list narrows “professional” programs and name specific exclusions such as nursing, public health, audiology, and speech‑language pathology, and they report the loan amounts differentiated by category; however, available sources do not publish a single authoritative, exhaustive checklist of every degree title that will count or the final language of the regulation — the DOE’s finalized rule text and an official comprehensive list are not present in these items [1] [2] [4].
8. Bottom line for readers deciding on programs or policy positions
If you are a student or employer in nursing, public health, audiology, speech‑language pathology, social work, counseling, or several allied health fields, these draft regulations — as reported — could materially change federal loan access and cost calculations for graduate study; industry groups recommend monitoring the rulemaking and submitting comments [3] [5] [2]. For policy watchers, the controversy centers on administrative interpretation of an existing regulatory definition and the real‑world consequences for workforce development and student finance [1] [4].