Which professional degrees were removed from the 2025–2026 list and what reasons did accrediting bodies give?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The U.S. Department of Education’s late‑2025 reworking of the federal “professional degree” list removed a broad set of graduate programs from that category — including nursing, education (teaching master’s), social work, public health, physician assistant, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, and many counseling degrees — a grouping compiled in contemporaneous reporting and fact‑checks [1] [2] [3]. The department says it is applying a historical, narrow regulatory definition tied to programs that typically culminate in doctoral‑level training and require licensure [4] [1], while some professional organizations (for example, architecture’s NAAB and the AIA) have emphasized that state licensure and accreditation for their fields remain intact even as federal borrowing status changes [5].
1. What was removed: a consolidated list assembled from reporting
Multiple outlets and a Snopes fact‑check list the programs the Education Department said would no longer count as federal “professional degrees” for loan‑cap purposes: nursing graduate degrees such as MSN and DNP; education master’s (teaching) degrees; social work (MSW/DSW); public health (MPH/DrPH); physician assistant programs; occupational therapy; physical therapy; audiology; speech‑language pathology; many counseling and therapy degrees; plus ancillary mentions of fields like accounting and architecture in some reports [1] [2] [3] [6]. Broad summaries circulated in Newsweek, Gulf News and local reporting repeated the same collection of excluded fields and tied the change to the new borrowing caps that begin July 1, 2026 [7] [3] [6].
2. Why the Education Department says it removed them: definition, criteria, and statutory change
The department says it is using a longstanding, narrower regulatory definition of “professional degree” — one that centers on programs that confer a level of professional skill beyond the bachelor’s, often result in doctoral‑level credentials, and typically require professional licensure to begin practice — and it told reporters the proposed regulatory language “aligns with this historical precedent” [4] [1]. The shift also follows the July 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which eliminated Grad PLUS loan authority and created new graduate borrowing caps, making an administrable, narrower list consequential for financing [1] [4].
3. How accrediting bodies and professional groups have responded (and what they said)
Some professional organizations and accrediting stakeholders framed the change as an administrative reclassification tied to federal loan rules rather than a revocation of professional status or of accreditation: the American Institute of Architects stressed that NAAB‑accredited degrees (B.Arch/M.Arch/D.Arch) remain the routes for state licensure even while federal borrowing status may change [5]. The Department’s public statements — cited by fact‑checkers — also pushed back at alarmist framing, saying institutions “crying wolf” over the regulations were conflating loan‑eligibility rules with accreditation and that the agency expects to finalize rules in 2026 [1] [5]. Reporting does not include extended, direct quotations from all accrediting agencies named (for example, nursing, social work, public health accreditors) explaining their own reasoning in detail.
4. The practical rationale offered and the gap in public explanations
Officials framed the reclassification as a way to operationalize new statutory loan limits and to reserve the higher “professional” borrowing cap for a tightly defined set of programs historically treated as professional (medicine, law, dentistry, etc.), a view reflected in negotiated rulemaking materials and media summaries [4] [8]. However, public reporting shows a gap: while the Education Department cites historical regulatory tests and OBBBA’s statutory framework as the reasons, many accrediting bodies’ formal justifications for accepting, contesting, or contextualizing the change are not fully quoted in the reporting provided — leaving uncertainty about whether accreditors consider the move a technical loan‑policy matter or a substantive challenge to workforce pipelines [1] [5].
5. Bottom line and what remains unresolved
The changed list is clear enough in contemporary coverage: a dozen‑plus graduate programs traditionally viewed as “professional” were excluded for federal loan‑cap purposes [1] [2]. The Education Department frames the action as an application of a narrow, historical definition and an implementation of new statutory borrowing caps [4] [1], while professional groups like the AIA stress accreditation and licensure processes are separate [5]. Reporting to date documents reactions and the policy mechanism but lacks comprehensive, published statements from every affected accrediting body explaining their rationale in response, so some institutional perspectives remain under‑reported [1].