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.
Are there legal or regulatory definitions that now determine which degrees qualify as professional degrees?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s negotiated-rulemaking (RISE) process is actively producing a new, narrower regulatory definition of “professional degree” that would determine which graduate programs qualify for higher federal loan limits; negotiators have proposed criteria such as doctoral-level status, at least six years of academic instruction (two post‑baccalaureate), preparation for licensure, and inclusion in certain four‑digit CIP code groups [1] [2]. Multiple higher‑education and professional associations warn the draft list would exclude many allied‑health, social‑service, and nursing programs—potentially reducing loan access—while pro‑limit voices praise tighter rules as a way to constrain borrowing [3] [4] [5] [2].
1. What the new regulatory definition would do — and why it matters
The Education Department’s negotiated proposal ties “professional degree” status to specific, enumerated features: typically doctoral‑level awards (with limited exceptions), a minimum of six years of academic instruction (including two post‑baccalaureate years), demonstrable preparation for a licensed occupation, and membership in a four‑digit CIP code group aligned with an explicitly listed set of professions; that legal/regulatory redefinition decides who gets higher federal loan caps under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) [1] [6] [2]. Because Congress left the precise definition to the Department, these regulatory choices directly affect student borrowing limits — professional students could borrow up to $50,000 per year ($200,000 total) versus much lower caps for other graduate students [2].
2. What programs are explicitly included — and which are at risk
Negotiators reportedly agreed to recognize roughly 11 primary program areas (medicine, law, dentistry, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, optometry, podiatry, chiropractic, osteopathic medicine, theology, and clinical psychology) and some doctoral programs as “professional,” while excluding many other fields that stakeholders call “professional” in practice [5] [1]. Associations for public health, nursing, social work, and allied health argue the proposed text would exclude degrees like MPH/DrPH, advanced nursing (NP) degrees, social work masters, occupational therapy, and physician assistant training, threatening loan access for students in those pipelines [3] [7] [4] [8].
3. Competing rationales: limiting debt vs. preserving workforce pipelines
Advocates for the stricter definition, including some policy analysts, argue it limits high borrowing to the highest‑cost, long‑training professions and curbs overall graduate indebtedness (the new caps set professional program borrowing at $200k vs. $100k for other graduate study) [2]. Opponents—professional associations and university groups—say the rule is overly narrow, ignores long‑standing precedents about what constitutes a professional credential, and could reduce access to high‑need professions by making advanced training less affordable [3] [5] [9].
4. How the department is implementing the rule technically
The proposed regulatory test leans on objective markers (degree level, duration, CIP coding, and licensure pathways) rather than program names; that is intended to prevent arbitrary distinctions based solely on program length or title, but in practice it means many programs not in the specified CIP clusters or not meeting the six‑year default may be excluded even if they lead to licensure [7] [1] [10]. Sources note the department would also permit the Secretary to determine CIP alignment, giving bureaucratic discretion to classify borderline programs [10] [1].
5. Political and procedural context — negotiated rulemaking and pushback
These definitions emerged from the RISE committee’s negotiated rulemaking sessions implementing provisions of H.R. 1/OBBBA; stakeholders had multiple sessions and issue papers, and the negotiated consensus reflects both agency goals and intense pushback by professional groups [6] [11]. Associations such as the American Association of Universities, nursing and public‑health schools, and social work bodies have publicly criticized the draft; some policy think tanks applaud the tighter limits as fiscally prudent [5] [3] [4] [2].
6. Limitations in available reporting and what to watch next
Current reporting provides draft regulatory language and documented reactions but does not yet show a final, legally binding rule or formal Secretary determinations — the rulemaking process, public comments, and possible revisions remain ongoing [1] [11]. Watch for the Education Department’s final regulatory text, the public comment period responses from professional groups, and any Congressional or legal challenges that could alter which degrees are ultimately certified as “professional” under federal loan rules [6] [1].
Available sources do not mention a final, published rule or court decisions settling this question; the situation remains a live regulatory negotiation [1] [11].