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 regulatory criteria and definitions did ED use to determine a degree was 'non-professional' in the 2025 reclassification?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 reclassification set a narrow, multi-part test for what counts as a “professional” degree: it must generally be doctoral-level (six years of postsecondary study including at least two post‑baccalaureate years), lead to licensure/qualification for beginning practice, and fall into one of 11 named fields or share the same four‑digit CIP code as those fields — a filter ED estimated would produce about 44 candidate programs by CIP alone before other criteria cut that number down [1] [2] [3]. Critics from nursing, social work, public health, and higher‑ed groups say the CIP‑code and doctoral‑level requirements will exclude many clinically oriented master’s and other programs that otherwise meet licensure and practice criteria [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. The rule ED used: a three-pronged, gatekeeping definition
ED’s negotiated proposal defines a “professional degree” by three main requirements: (a) completion of academic preparation sufficient for beginning practice and a level of skill beyond a bachelor’s degree; (b) typically at the doctoral level — requiring six years of higher education including at least two years post‑baccalaureate; and (c) inclusion in the same four‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code as one of roughly 11 professions ED lists as qualifying fields [2] [1] [3]. The department told negotiators the CIP‑based universe is about 44 programs before applying the other conditions [3].
2. CIP codes as a decisive — and controversial — sieve
ED’s reliance on four‑digit CIP codes to link other programs to the 11 enumerated fields makes program classification heavily technical: even programs that meet licensure and doctoral‑level standards would be excluded if their CIP code does not match one of the designated fields, according to NASFAA and ED discussion notes [4] [3]. Professional groups warn that using CIP codes this way treats an administrative taxonomy as a proxy for professional content and could arbitrarily omit disciplines that operate under different coding conventions [5] [4].
3. The doctoral‑level and six‑year requirement: narrowing the field
ED’s language makes doctoral‑level education the general expectation for a “professional” designation, requiring at least six academic years including two post‑baccalaureate years [1] [2]. Negotiators debated whether some long master’s programs could qualify under alternate tests; critics point out many clinical or licensure pathways (e.g., advanced nursing, social work, public health) are master’s‑level yet deliver direct practice readiness [3] [5] [6].
4. Who is likely affected — and what stakeholders say
Multiple professional associations — nursing organizations, the Council on Social Work Education, public‑health advocates, and university groups — say the combined CIP, licensure, and doctoral tests will exclude nursing specialties (NP, DNP, CRNA, CNM), many social work and public‑health degrees, physician assistant programs, physical therapy tracks, and others from the higher “professional” loan caps [6] [5] [7] [8]. The AAU and other higher‑education groups stress the change will shrink the set of programs eligible for larger loan limits and may harm access [8].
5. ED’s stated rationale and internal framing
ED representatives framed the definition as aligning with historical regulatory language while creating a consistent, consensus‑based test during the RISE negotiated rulemaking; the department emphasized that the negotiated language reflects long‑standing precedents and committee agreement [9] [3]. ED also presented estimates of candidate programs by CIP to justify an administrable rule [3].
6. Limits of current reporting and unresolved questions
Available sources describe the criteria and reactions but do not provide a finalized regulatory text with exact list of the 11 named fields, nor do they confirm final counts of programs that will ultimately qualify after licensure and length filters are applied — reporting notes an initial CIP universe of 44 but says the real number will be lower once all criteria are considered [3] [1]. Sources also do not detail how ED will handle mixed‑mode programs, dual‑degree tracks, or state‑to‑state licensure variations [3] [5].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Advocacy groups for health and social‑service professions argue the rule appears designed to limit the number of programs eligible for higher loan caps and may reflect fiscal or political priorities to narrow benefits [8] [6]. ED and some negotiators counter that the definition restores clarity and reflects consistency with historical regulation; higher‑ed negotiators pushed alternate, broader tests during rulemaking but did not prevail on all points [9] [3]. These conflicting framings reveal an implicit policy tradeoff: administrative simplicity and budgetary control versus broad professional inclusion.
8. What to watch next
The reporting indicates ED planned to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking opening a public comment period — that step would show the exact regulatory text and the enumerated list of fields, and it would be the point where stakeholders can press for changes to CIP use, degree‑level tests, or licensure definitions [7] [1]. Watch for the final rule and agency responses to public comments to see whether CIP‑based exclusions or the doctoral‑level requirement are softened [1] [7].