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 institutions reclassified degrees as non-professional and what were their stated reasons?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s recent rulemaking proposal would sharply narrow which graduate programs qualify as “professional degrees,” effectively reclassifying many programs — notably nursing and several public‑health and allied‑health degrees — as non‑professional and therefore subject to lower loan limits [1] [2]. Reporting and advocacy groups say the new definition cuts the listed programs from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 and will exclude advanced nursing, physician assistant, occupational therapy, clinical psychology, audiology, and other health fields from the professional category [3] [4] [5].
1. What the Department of Education proposed and why it matters
The Department of Education (ED), implementing provisions of the OBBBA/H.R. 1 loan law, negotiated regulatory language that narrows the set of fields whose degrees count as “professional,” tying the definition to specific 4‑digit CIP codes and an enumerated list of fields — a change that will limit which programs are eligible for the higher graduate/professional loan caps created by the law [1] [6]. NewAmerica explains that the statute froze the professional‑degree definition as it existed on July 4, 2025 and the regulation now codifies a much smaller set of eligible programs; institutions will face new pricing, financing and access pressures if students lose higher loan eligibility [7].
2. Which programs are being reclassified in coverage so far
Newsweek, regional press and multiple advocacy outlets report that nursing programs — including advanced nursing degrees and nurse practitioner programs — are explicitly excluded from ED’s new “professional degree” list, and that public health and several allied‑health professions are likewise not on the department’s narrowed list [5] [8] [2]. Social posts and advocacy commentaries claim physician assistant, occupational therapy, audiology, clinical psychology and other fields would also lose professional status under the proposal [4] [3]. NASFAA explains the technical mechanism: programs that do not share a 4‑digit CIP with one of the eleven designated fields will be treated as non‑professional even if they otherwise meet other criteria [6].
3. Institutions and organizations raising alarms
Large university associations and professional schools are publicly objecting: the Association of American Universities warned that the consensus draft regulations will curtail programs eligible for higher loan limits and warned of downstream effects on fields like medicine [1]. The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) is actively advocating to preserve public‑health degrees as professional and preparing to engage the department’s notice‑and‑comment process [2]. NASFAA and NewAmerica provide practical guidance and analysis for institutions and students about how the new definitions change loan eligibility and institutional behavior [6] [7].
4. Stated rationales from ED negotiators and lawmakers (as reported)
Available sources describe the policy outcome — a narrower, CIP‑code‑based list and a move to codify the older regulatory definition as of the statute’s enactment — but do not quote a detailed public justification from ED negotiators in the materials provided here beyond the technical explanation that the law requires using the regulatory definition as of a given date [7] [6]. The negotiated language’s effect — reducing program counts and restricting loan caps — is emphasized in the reporting [1] [3].
5. Arguments from critics and supporters
Critics — including nursing associations and health‑workforce advocates — say excluding nursing and many allied‑health degrees is a “gut punch” that will hinder workforce development, constrain career advancement, and reduce access to advanced training at a time of workforce shortages [5] [9]. University groups warn the rule will limit funding access and prompt institutions to rethink program financing [1] [7]. Supporters of tighter definitions or of the broader legislative package frame the change as a translation of statutory text into implementing regulations; however, in the provided reporting there is no direct source cited that defends the narrower list on policy grounds beyond complying with the statute [7].
6. What reporting does not (yet) show
Current materials do not publish a comprehensive, department‑issued list of every program reclassified, nor do they include a point‑by‑point defense from ED explaining why specific fields (beyond the legal/technical rationale) were excluded; available sources do not mention a full accounting from ED of each affected CIP code or a formal response from lawmakers defending each exclusion [6] [7]. Detailed loan‑impact calculations by program, or a definitive roster of institutions that have reclassified or changed program status in reaction to the rule, are not included in the provided excerpts [3] [4].
7. What to watch next
The Department of Education plans to publish the regulatory language in the Federal Register and open a public comment period, at which point ASPPH and other stakeholders plan to submit formal comments and institutions will likely press Congress for statutory changes or clarifications [2] [7]. Observers should watch for the Federal Register notice, the department’s full list of designated CIP codes/fields, and formal comments from ED responding to objections; those documents will provide the clearest evidence of which specific programs lose or retain “professional” status [1] [2].