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 criteria did ED use to differentiate 'nonprofessional' (academic) degrees from professional degrees over time?
Executive summary
The Department of Education (ED) recently moved to narrow which programs count as “professional degree” programs for higher federal loan limits, proposing a list that would recognize only a limited set of fields and exclude many health and helping professions such as nursing, audiology, speech‑language pathology, public health, accounting, architecture and education (examples and reactions summarized across reporting) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and stakeholder statements show ED’s approach relies on a negotiated, criteria‑driven definition developed via the RISE committee and negotiated rulemaking, but the exact tests and thresholds (doctoral level, years of postsecondary work, licensure ties, hands‑on training) remain contested in the rulemaking record and stakeholder commentary [4] [5].
1. How ED is changing — and why it matters
ED’s recent work to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBBA) includes draft regulations that would limit the number of degree programs categorized as “professional,” shrinking the set eligible for the higher $200,000 professional loan aggregate and related benefits; that regulatory process was undertaken through a RISE committee and negotiated rulemaking that produced consensus language on a narrowed list of programs and some doctoral exceptions [1] [5]. Stakeholders warn that excluding programs from the professional bucket would restrict students’ access to higher loan limits and could affect workforce pipelines in critical fields [1] [5].
2. The criteria on the table — what ED and negotiators discussed
Negotiators and ED officials debated a set of criteria in committee sessions: program level (generally doctoral or requiring many years of postsecondary coursework), whether the program requires licensure/certification, and whether it is focused on hands‑on training aimed at a specific career rather than research orientation [4] [6]. NASFAA’s negotiated rulemaking notes participants asking whether doctoral level should be required or whether meeting multiple other provisions (six years of postsecondary coursework including two post‑baccalaureate years) could suffice, showing ED considered both level and cumulative coursework/time-to-completion as triggers [4].
3. Which fields were explicitly excluded in practice
ED’s proposed or implemented list—reported widely—has left out many fields that professional associations and employers treat as clinical or licensure‑based: nursing, physician assistants, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, public health degrees such as MPH/DrPH, architecture, accounting, education, and social work have been named by reporting and organizations as excluded or at risk in the new framing [7] [8] [9] [3] [5]. Coverage notes immediate pushback from professional associations who argue those programs meet traditional markers of professionalism (rigorous education, licensure, direct practice focus) [9] [3].
4. Stakeholder pushback and competing definitions
Professional organizations (American Nurses Association, AACN, ASHA, schools of public health, research universities) say ED’s narrow definition contradicts longstanding professional practice and will harm access; ED press officials have contested characterizations of wholesale change, saying the consensus language aligns with historical precedent, highlighting a public disagreement over what the “historical” baseline actually is [2] [9] [3]. The AAU and ASPPH warn that draft rules limiting recognized professional programs to about 11 primary programs plus some doctorates would be a meaningful contraction that undermines workforce and education pipelines [1] [5].
5. What the record shows — and what’s not yet clear
The negotiated rulemaking records show ED and committee members explicitly wrestling with technical criteria (doctoral level, years of coursework, licensure), but they also show negotiators asking to soften or clarify language (for example, whether a bachelor’s remains a bachelor’s or whether programs that meet cumulative coursework/time can qualify) [4]. Available sources do not mention finalized regulatory text in its entirety or a completed Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with final definitions; public comment and further rulemaking steps were expected [5] [1].
6. Practical implications and likely next battlegrounds
If ED finalizes a narrow professional‑degree definition, schools and students in excluded fields could face lower loan caps and altered eligibility — a point emphasized by nursing and allied‑health groups raising concerns about recruitment, graduate education access, and workforce shortages [9] [10]. Expect focused lobbying and sector campaigns (capitol hill meetings, petitions, comment campaigns) from affected professions (speech/hearing, nursing, public health) as they seek explicit inclusion or carve‑outs during the regulatory public‑comment period [3] [5].
Limitations: reporting is drawn from committee summaries, association statements and media accounts; full, final regulatory language was not present in the provided documents, so precise statutory or regulatory tests ED will use are not fully documented here [4] [5].