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.

Loading...Goal: 1,000 supporters
Loading...

Are professional degree fields listed in accreditation criteria or program classification systems (CIP codes)?

Checked on November 25, 2025
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important info or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

Federal classification systems like the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) are taxonomies of instructional fields used for reporting and policy, but they do not themselves define “professional degrees”; however federal agencies and rules sometimes tie CIP codes to regulatory definitions of qualifying or professional programs (for example for STEM OPT or gainful-employment lists) [1] [2] [3]. Institutions assign CIP codes when reporting program data, and agencies publish lists of CIP codes that meet regulatory tests — meaning program fields can be treated as “professional” for specific policies when regulators say so [4] [3].

1. What CIP is and what it does — a data taxonomy, not a diploma

The National Center for Education Statistics’ CIP is a standardized taxonomy to categorize instructional programs at the two-, four‑, and six‑digit levels for federal surveys and institutional reporting; it’s used to map program names, track completions, and feed systems such as IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) [1] [5]. CIP codes are generic categories designed to “capture” fields of study offered at multiple levels (certificate through doctorate), not to declare whether a credential is a “professional degree” by themselves [5] [6].

2. Where “professional” status appears: agency rules that reference CIP

Federal agencies and regulations sometimes use CIP codes as a practical mechanism to identify programs that meet regulatory definitions — for example, DHS uses the Department of Education’s CIP taxonomy to determine which degrees qualify for the STEM OPT extension, and the Department of Education has published lists of CIP codes eligible for specific graduate program treatment under financial disclosure and gainful-employment rules [2] [3]. In other words, CIP codes can be the shorthand that regulators use when they declare certain fields “qualifying” or “eligible” under a rule, but that designation comes from the rule, not the CIP taxonomy itself [2] [3].

3. How institutions and agencies assign and use CIP codes in practice

Colleges map their majors to CIP codes when reporting to federal systems and visa documents (e.g., Major 1 and Major 2 on I‑20s rely on the institution’s mapped CIP list), and schools can request or justify different CIP assignments when programs evolve — showing there’s institutional discretion in aligning program titles with CIP categories [4] [7]. State and federal lists and guidance (e.g., DHS STEM list or ED’s qualifying graduate-program list) then operate off those assigned codes to trigger program-specific benefits, requirements, or reporting regimes [4] [3].

4. Why confusion arises: policy uses, not taxonomy, create “professional” lists

Public debate and misinformation often conflate the CIP taxonomy with policy decisions that treat certain codes as “professional.” For example, news accounts about reclassification of nursing or pharmacy hinge on whether a regulatory definition references specific CIP codes — the CIP entry for Pharmacy (51.20) is simply the classification; whether pharmacy counts as a “professional degree” for loans or benefits depends on the Department’s rule that cites that CIP code [8] [1]. Thus the same CIP code can be neutral in NCES data yet invoked decisively in an agency’s regulatory list [1] [3].

5. Competing perspectives and limits of the sources

One perspective (administrative) treats CIP as an authoritative, practical list for implementing policy — agencies use CIP lists to make consistent enforcement decisions [2] [3]. Another perspective emphasizes CIP’s intended neutrality and descriptive purpose: it catalogs fields across levels and does not inherently assign licensure or “professional” status [5] [6]. Available sources do not mention whether NCES itself ever labels programs “professional degrees” as a categorical attribute beyond their CIP descriptions — that labeling appears to come from policy documents and agency regulations [1] [3].

6. Practical takeaway for readers and stakeholders

If you’re trying to know whether a specific program (nursing, counseling, pharmacy, etc.) is treated as a professional degree for a particular benefit or rule, check the relevant agency’s regulation or published CIP list (e.g., DHS STEM lists, ED’s qualifying-program CIP lists) rather than the CIP taxonomy itself; institutions’ CIP mappings and agency lists together determine how a field is treated in practice [4] [2] [3]. When you see headlines about programs being “reclassified,” verify which regulatory list or rule changed and which CIP codes it cites, because the CIP system is the indexing tool agencies use — not the originator of policy judgments [8] [3].

Want to dive deeper?
Are professional degrees referenced in regional and national accreditation standards (e.g., NECHE, WASC, HLC)?
How do CIP codes classify professional degree programs (law, medicine, engineering, business) and where can I find those codes?
Do specialized accreditors (ABA, LCME, ABET) treat professional degrees differently than institutional accreditors?
How do program classification systems affect federal funding, student aid eligibility, and reporting for professional degrees?
What steps should a university take to ensure a professional degree is correctly classified and accredited for licensure outcomes?