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 is the list of degrees that are non professional as of 2026 DOE
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s RISE committee and draft regulatory text would sharply narrow which graduate programs count as “professional degrees,” reducing roughly 2,000 program entries to fewer than 600 and recognizing only about 11 primary fields plus some doctoral programs as professional—changes scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026 [1] [2] [3]. Multiple education and health organizations say this will exclude nursing, public health (MPH/DrPH), physician assistants, occupational therapy, audiology, clinical psychology and other advanced health programs from professional-status loan limits, which shifts many students into lower borrowing caps and eliminates Grad PLUS [1] [4] [5] [2].
1. What “non‑professional” will mean in practice: loan caps and program labeling
Under the RISE committee’s draft approach, programs not listed among the limited set of fields designated as “professional” will be treated as graduate (non‑professional) for federal loan limits—graduate programs would face annual unsubsidized limits of $20,500 and lifetime aggregate caps of $100,000, while programs designated professional would be eligible for higher limits ($50,000 per year, $200,000 aggregate); the Grad PLUS program is also being eliminated starting July 1, 2026 [3] [2].
2. Which disciplines have public reporting saying they’ll be excluded
Reporting and stakeholder statements repeatedly call out nursing (MSN, DNP), public health (MPH, DrPH), physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, audiology, and clinical psychology as among the health and related fields likely to lose “professional” classification under the proposed definition [1] [5] [4] [6].
3. How the Department’s technical method shapes winners and losers
NASFAA explains the department’s technical rule ties professional status to 4‑digit CIP code groupings keyed to the eleven fields ED designates; programs that are substantively similar to designated professional programs can nonetheless be excluded if they don’t share the CIP code—this mechanically narrows the list even where professional practice or licensure similarities exist [7].
4. Stakeholder reactions: alarm from nursing and public‑health organizations
Major nursing organizations (AACN) and public‑health advocates (ASPPH) say exclusion is a direct threat to workforce pipelines, arguing the change contradicts decades of precedent about which degrees prepare for licensure and direct practice and will make advanced health training less affordable [8] [4]. News outlets and association summaries likewise highlight fears of reduced graduate enrollment and workforce shortages if borrowing access tightens [5] [9].
5. Countervailing perspectives and process notes
Education‑sector observers (e.g., New America, AAU) frame the move as part of implementing H.R. 1 and the OBBBA provisions to rein in borrowing and simplify definitions; they note a rulemaking process with public comment and that final rules were expected in early 2026, signaling the draft is not yet final and stakeholders can still influence outcomes during rulemaking [3] [2]. AAU and NASFAA coverage also emphasizes administrative motives—aligning loan limits with statutory priorities and preventing expansive interpretations of “professional” that drove higher borrowing historically [2] [7].
6. What is uncertain or not documented in current reporting
Available sources do not provide a single authoritative, published list of every degree that will be designated “non‑professional” under the final rule; the coverage identifies many high‑impact examples but indicates the department’s draft text recognizes “11 primary programs” and some doctoral programs without listing all excluded CIP codes or program titles [2] [7]. Precise institutional or program‑level loan caps—especially where schools may set lower institutional limits—are mentioned as possibilities but are not exhaustively catalogued in the reporting [3] [7].
7. What borrowers and institutions can do now
Observers advise monitoring the department’s formal rulemaking docket and submitting public comments during the comment period; professional associations (AACN, ASPPH) are mobilizing advocacy and public comment campaigns to press for inclusion of nursing and public‑health degrees in the professional category [8] [4]. NASFAA and New America materials recommend financial‑aid offices prepare for program‑level implementation and to track whether programs share the designated CIP codes that will determine status [7] [3].
Final note: reporting to date makes clear the draft will substantially narrow which programs receive the higher professional loan limits and that health professions are central to the dispute, but a definitive, granular list of every degree labeled “non‑professional” in the final regulation is not provided in the current published sources [2] [1] [7].