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 were the stated reasons and criteria used to reclassify those degrees as non-professional?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking (RISE committee) produced a tighter, criteria-driven definition of “professional degree” that would sharply shrink the list of programs eligible for higher federal loan caps — the department’s draft recognizes only about a dozen primary program types and some doctorates while excluding many fields such as nursing, social work, and public health under its framework [1] [2] [3]. The stated criteria include requirement of preparation for licensure or direct practice, a level of skill beyond the bachelor’s, multi‑year post‑baccalaureate coursework (often specified as at least two years or six total years), and reliance on CIP codes to identify programs [2] [3] [4].
1. A narrower “professional” definition aimed at limiting loan exposure
The immediate motive behind the reclassification effort was fiscal and policy design: Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R.1) set different, higher loan limits for “professional degree” programs, and the Department sought a precise definition to limit how many programs qualify and thus how much higher‑limit borrowing could occur [1] [4]. Negotiators agreed to recognize a short list of primary program types (about 11) plus select doctoral programs as “professional,” reducing the universe of eligible programs from thousands to under 600 on some estimates, according to advocates and observers [1] [5].
2. Core criteria the Department proposed
Under the Department’s proposal, a program would count as “professional” only if it (a) requires “a level of skill beyond that of a bachelor’s degree,” (b) prepares students for a licensed occupation or direct practice, and (c) meets minimum post‑baccalaureate length thresholds — frequently stated as at least two years of graduate study or six years of total postsecondary education — and would be identified by 4‑digit CIP codes for program classification [2] [4] [3].
3. Licensure and “beginning practice” as gatekeepers
A central test is whether the degree entails “completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession” and supports a level of professional skill beyond the bachelor’s; programs without a clear path to licensure or to initial professional practice risk exclusion [3]. Organizations representing social work, nursing, and public health have warned that those fields — despite providing entry into practice or advanced practice tracks — may be treated as non‑professional under the Department’s framing [3] [6] [7].
4. Use of CIP codes to draw firm lines — and controversies that follow
The Department’s reliance on 4‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes to identify eligible degrees is intended to produce an administrable, consistent list, but professional associations argue that CIP codes don’t always capture the functional role, clinical requirements, or licensure pathways of a program; CSWE (social work) explicitly urged that CIP use could create “unjustified distinctions” and exclude rigorous health‑service programs [3]. Advocates say this administrative convenience risks misclassifying degrees that vary by institution and state licensure rules.
5. Disagreement among stakeholders: fiscal prudence vs. workforce risk
Think tanks and some higher‑ed commentators framed the change as sensible targeting — excluding programs (e.g., Ed.D., MSW in some analyses) where most students borrow within standard limits reduces unnecessary higher‑limit access [4]. By contrast, professional associations (AACN, ANA, CSWE, ASPPH) warn the change would limit graduate borrowing for essential health and human services professions — potentially shrinking pipelines for nurse practitioners, public‑health leaders, social workers and others — and urged the Department to revise the definition or engage stakeholders [8] [6] [3] [7].
6. Practical effect: loan caps, Grad PLUS elimination, and access
The negotiated rules sit within a broader package that phases out Grad PLUS loans and sets new annual and aggregate caps (professional programs allowed higher caps, e.g., up to $50,000/year and $200,000 aggregate under H.R.1 as discussed), so programs reclassified as non‑professional would face lower student borrowing capacity; associations warn that combination could make graduate training unaffordable for many in service professions [4] [1] [9].
7. Limitations in available reporting and open questions
Available sources document the Department’s draft criteria and stakeholder responses but do not publish the final full list of CIP‑coded programs or exact numeric counts for reductions in every field; the Department’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a final rulemaking text remain the decisive documents [2] [1]. Also, sources differ on whether some doctoral programs remain eligible and how legacy protections apply, so the ultimate legal/administrative outcome could shift in rulemaking and public comments [10] [2].
Bottom line: the Department’s stated reasons are administrative clarity and limiting higher‑limit loan exposure by defining “professional” through licensure/preparation for practice, post‑baccalaureate length, and CIP codes; critics say those criteria will arbitrarily exclude many essential health and social‑service degrees and threaten workforce pipelines [2] [3] [7].