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.
How did ED define 'professional' vs 'non-professional' degrees in the 2025 rule changes?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s negotiated-rulemaking work and proposed 2025 regulatory language narrows which postgraduate programs count as “professional” for higher federal loan caps, moving from roughly 2,000 possibilities toward a much smaller list and treating many health‑care and education credentials as graduate (not professional) degrees [1] [2]. ED and its committee say the definition relies on long‑standing regulatory text and program characteristics (doctoral level, licensure, length), but nursing, social work, public health and other commonly cited programs are being left off the core “professional” list in the current proposals—provoking major pushback from nursing and higher‑education groups [3] [4] [2].
1. What ED’s proposed definition says — a narrower, characteristics‑based test
ED’s draft and the negotiated committee’s consensus tie “professional degree” status to a set of program characteristics rather than to an expansive list: programs that signify completion of academic requirements for beginning practice, are generally at the doctoral level (often requiring about six years of postsecondary education including post‑baccalaureate coursework), and generally lead to professional licensure are the model the department used in drafting the rule, which ED staff say reduces the potential universe of eligible programs substantially [5] [6].
2. Which programs would remain “professional” under the draft — a short core set
Multiple analyses and commentaries report that the draft effectively retains only a small core of historically explicit professions — medicine, law, dentistry and pharmacy — as clearly professional for federal loan purposes, while reclassifying many others (including advanced nursing, PA, occupational therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, physical therapy, public health, social work and some counseling/education degrees) as graduate degrees [7] [4] [1].
3. How this connects to loan policy and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)
Congress’s change to loan caps under OBBBA created distinct borrowing limits for “graduate” versus “professional” students. That statutory split forced ED to create a regulatory definition controlling which programs are eligible for the higher professional student caps (e.g., $200,000 aggregate cited in reporting) — a practical consequence that drives the reclassification debate [4] [8].
4. ED’s legal/technical defense: precedent and negotiated consensus
ED officials and the department’s negotiators argue the draft hews to a decades‑old regulatory framework (34 CFR 668.2) and to consensus language arrived at in negotiated rulemaking; ED staff emphasize that the committee—which included institutions—agreed on narrower language and that the agency is following that consensus into a proposed rule [8] [6].
5. Pushback from professional organizations and critics
Nursing organizations, the Association of American Universities (AAU), and professional societies argue the change will reduce access to needed federal funding for high‑demand health and education workforces, calling the narrower definition harmful to pipeline, patient care and parity among health professions. Groups say programs that lead to licensure and direct practice (e.g., nursing DNP, PA, OT, audiology) should remain professional degree programs [3] [2] [9].
6. Conflicting accounts and reporting differences to note
News outlets and advocacy pieces vary on the precise list and scale: some reporting frames the change as reclassifying hundreds of programs and reducing eligible programs from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 [1], while ED and its press office emphasize historical precedent and negotiated language. Snopes and other outlets compiled rosters of programs reported as excluded, but detail and timing differ across pieces; the department says final rules will be published after formal notice-and-comment [4] [10].
7. What the process means for stakeholders and next steps
Because negotiated committee consensus triggers formal proposal requirements, ED is expected to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and open a public comment period before any final regulatory change. Stakeholder appeals, workforce analyses, and institutional lobbying are underway; groups such as ASHA and nursing organizations are preparing comment and advocacy to try to expand or restore program inclusion [6] [3].
Limitations and unresolved items: available sources document the proposal, committee rationale, and which programs multiple outlets report as excluded, but they do not provide a definitive final regulatory text here — the precise final list and any carve‑outs will depend on the forthcoming NPRM and public comment process [10] [6].