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 exact degrees the Education Department reclassified as non-professional in 2025 and what criteria were used?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking in November 2025 produced a much narrower regulatory definition of “professional degree” that recognizes 11 primary fields (including medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, and clinical psychology) and ties eligibility to 4‑digit CIP codes and other tests — a change that excludes many programs such as advanced nursing, physician assistant, some public‑health and social‑work degrees from the higher federal loan limits (OBBBA limits) under the proposal [1] [2] [3]. Precise program lists and final regulatory text were still in flux in the coverage: reporting and stakeholder statements identify nursing, many advanced nursing programs (MSN, DNP, NP, CRNA), PA programs, certain public‑health degrees (MPH, DrPH), social work, occupational therapy and others as effectively reclassified out of “professional” status under the committee’s draft criteria [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What the department’s draft actually does: a tighter, CIP‑based gate
The Department presented a proposal that narrows “professional degree” eligibility by requiring programs generally to be doctoral‑level (with limited exceptions), involve at least six years of total postsecondary instruction (including at least two post‑baccalaureate years), demonstrate they prepare students for licensure or direct practice, and crucially be in the same four‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code as one of the 11 explicitly recognized professions — a shift from a looser, broader historic list [2] [1] [8].
2. Which fields were explicitly kept and which were left out in reporting
News coverage and advocacy groups report the department (and its RISE committee consensus) maintained roughly 11 primary professional program areas — medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, law, clinical psychology among them — and expanded some psychology coverage by CIP, but excluded many other graduate health and service professions from the higher loan category, including advanced nursing degrees (MSN, DNP, NP, CRNA), physician assistant programs, some occupational therapy and audiology programs, and certain public‑health and social‑work degrees [1] [4] [6] [7] [5].
3. The practical test students will face: multi‑part eligibility, not automatic status
Even programs that share a CIP with an enumerated field still must satisfy other parts of the department’s multi‑part test; analysts warn that the final number of students who actually qualify for expanded loan limits will be lower than the raw list implies because of the combination of degree‑level, instructional‑time, licensure and CIP requirements [1] [2].
4. Who is raising alarms — and why their concerns differ
Nursing groups (ANA, AACN) and social‑work and public‑health organizations say the change will block graduate students in critical workforce programs from accessing higher loan caps, worsening shortages and affordability for frontline professions [9] [5] [7]. Trade and policy voices like AEI praise tighter limits as sensible targeting of scarce borrower protections and cite data suggesting many degrees (e.g., Ed.D., MSW) borrow within standard limits already [10]. These competing perspectives reveal differing priorities: workforce capacity and student access versus fiscal targeting and limiting higher borrowing to a narrower set of costly professional programs [9] [10].
5. Evidence and numbers cited in coverage
Advocates and outlets emphasize scale: reporting flags more than 260,000 students in entry‑level BSN programs and tens of thousands in graduate nursing programs who could be affected, and social media/advocacy posts claim the list of eligible programs shrinks from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 under the proposed definition — figures widely cited but varying by source and not uniformly documented in a single government list in the reporting provided [3] [6].
6. What the department’s process and next steps mean for accuracy
Coverage makes clear the RISE committee reached a consensus draft and the department planned a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and public comment period; that means the proposal was not yet final rule and could change in response to comments, litigation, or further internal revisions [8] [7]. Available sources do not present a final published rule text listing every exact degree removed; instead, reporting and stakeholder statements identify many specific excluded program types [4] [5] [7].
7. Bottom line for readers evaluating claims
If you’re seeking a definitive, exhaustive list of every degree reclassified as “non‑professional,” current reporting shows the department narrowed eligibility around 11 named fields plus CIP‑matched programs and applied multiple criteria that exclude many advanced nursing, PA, public‑health, social‑work and related programs — but the precise final list depends on forthcoming regulatory text and possible revisions after the public comment phase [1] [2] [5]. Stakeholders on both sides are mobilizing: nursing and social‑service organizations urge inclusion for workforce reasons, while some policy analysts argue the narrower definition better targets loan caps [9] [10].
If you want, I can extract the specific 11 professions named in the committee materials and compile the lists of program types cited as excluded by each stakeholder group in the coverage above.