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 reasons or data prompted the agency to change the professional degree classifications?
Executive summary
The Department of Education changed how it will classify “professional degrees” as part of implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), narrowing the set of programs that get higher federal graduate loan caps and tying eligibility to a specific regulatory definition and CIP-code grouping; this shift will lower graduate annual loan limits to $20,500 for most programs versus $50,000 for those counted as professional, with lifetime caps of $100,000 and $200,000 respectively [1]. Reporters and affected associations say the list excludes many fields—nursing, public health, social work, audiology, speech‑language pathology, education and others—prompting advocacy and concern about workforce impacts [2] [3] [4].
1. Why the agency changed the classification: invoking OBBBA and a 1965 regulation
The Department’s move responds directly to Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which required the agency to define “professional degree” for the new loan-cap regime; ED used an existing regulatory definition (34 CFR 668.2) as it read on July 4, 2025, and operationalized that language to determine which programs qualify for higher loan limits [1] [2]. Inside Higher Ed reports the department tied the designation to program characteristics—such as requiring skill beyond a bachelor’s—and to CIP-code groupings that match enumerated fields [5] [1].
2. What concrete policy effects drove the reclassification decision
OBBBA replaces Grad PLUS and creates two relevant loan buckets: higher limits for “professional degree” programs and lower limits for other graduate programs; the Department’s definition therefore has direct financial consequences for how much federal borrowing students can access—annual and aggregate caps that differ roughly by a factor of two [1]. New America’s summary and reporting on the rulemaking emphasize that defining “professional” determines who gets the $50,000 annual / $200,000 aggregate pathway versus $20,500 annual / $100,000 aggregate for other graduates [1].
3. The Department’s methodological choices: narrow reading and CIP-code use
ED’s approach did not merely list degree titles; it tied the professional-degree category to certain named fields and to four‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes, broadening only some areas (e.g., clinical psychology) while excluding many traditionally thought of as professional [1]. Inside Higher Ed described ED’s criteria as requiring “a level of skill beyond that of a bachelor’s degree,” but the agency’s operationalization is narrower than many advocates expected [5].
4. Who is excluded and why advocacy groups are alarmed
Multiple professional organizations say the proposed or implemented definition excludes degrees they consider essential: nursing (MSN, DNP), public health (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW, DSW), audiology, speech‑language pathology, many education degrees, counseling, and others; groups such as ASPPH and ASHA warn that exclusion will limit students’ loan access and harm workforce pipelines [2] [3] [4]. News outlets and state nursing associations report the change could make it harder to afford graduate training in high‑need fields [6] [7].
5. Department’s stated rationale versus critics’ objections
ED frames the move as following precedent and implementing Congress’s statutory framework via an extant regulatory definition [2] [1]. Critics counter that the agency’s interpretation is narrower than historical practice and that relying on CIP-code grouping and a circumscribed list ignores how many graduate programs function as professional preparation, thereby potentially underfunding essential workforce training [2] [3] [4].
6. Practical consequences and likely next steps
Observers and associations expect immediate effects on student borrowing choices, institutional pricing and program recruitment; the department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and opened a comment period, and stakeholders are mobilizing to petition for inclusion or seek legislative fixes to OBBBA’s implementation [3] [1]. Inside Higher Ed notes ED made modest expansions in a later proposal compared to an original shorter list, indicating the agency is adjusting under pressure but that the core loan-cap structure remains [5].
7. Limitations and gaps in currently available reporting
Available sources describe the agency’s use of the 1965‑era regulatory language, CIP codes, and the financial caps created by OBBBA, but they do not provide the Department’s internal analytical memoranda, quantitative modeling of program costs versus loan-cap impacts, or a full public accounting of which exact CIP codes were included or excluded in every case—those details are not found in current reporting [2] [1] [5]. Reported lists of excluded degrees vary among outlets, reflecting evolving proposals and agency revisions [2] [6] [8].
8. How to read competing narratives: policy fidelity vs. workforce risk
The Department and some proponents present the change as a technical, legally grounded implementation of Congress’s design to more tightly target higher loan limits [1] [5]. Opponents—professional associations, universities, and some news outlets—frame it as a narrow reinterpretation that could reduce access to graduate training in essential fields and weaken workforce pipelines [3] [4] [6]. Both frames are grounded in the same facts about OBBBA’s loan buckets and ED’s choice to use the dated regulatory definition [1] [2].
If you want, I can compile the specific degree titles and the most-cited excluded CIP fields from these reports into a single list and indicate which sources list each program.