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.
Which undergraduate professional programs are not considered professional degrees by the Department of Education?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s recent implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBA/H.R.1) and related draft regulations narrows which programs it will treat as “professional degrees,” removing many fields from that classification and therefore from higher loan limits; reporting and organizational statements list nursing, education, social work, public health, physician assistant, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, counseling/therapy, architecture, and accounting among those affected (examples: nursing repeatedly cited) [1] [2] [3]. A Department spokesperson has pushed back, saying the department is using a decades‑old regulatory definition and that proposed language reflects consensus from a committee drafting the rule, but higher‑education groups warn the change will reduce access to financing for students in many high‑cost fields [4] [5].
1. What the Department of Education is changing — and why it matters
The department’s implementation of OBBA/H.R.1 limits which graduate and post‑baccalaureate programs count as “professional” for the purpose of higher loan caps and eligibility (the law sets higher annual and lifetime caps for “professional students”); a committee convened by the department agreed to recognize only 11 primary programs and some doctoral programs as professional under the new rule, a much narrower list than many universities and professional groups expected [5] [1]. That matters because programs excluded from the professional classification will no longer be eligible for the larger aggregate borrowing amounts the law permits, potentially increasing out‑of‑pocket costs for students in excluded fields [4] [6].
2. Who’s on the “not professional” list in contemporary reporting
Multiple news outlets and sector groups report that the department’s list excludes a wide array of fields often treated as professional by colleges and professional associations: nursing (MSN, DNP and post‑baccalaureate nursing education), education (including many teaching master’s), social work (MSW/DSW), public health (MPH/DrPH), physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, counseling and therapy degrees, and — in some reports — architecture and accounting [1] [3] [2] [6]. Newsweek and The Independent highlight nursing as a focal example and quote nursing organizations’ objections [3] [2].
3. Department of Education’s public position and industry rebuttals
The department maintains it is applying a longstanding regulatory definition of “professional degree” dating to the 1960s and that the committee’s consensus language aligns with that precedent; a department press official told Newsweek that claims nursing exclusion was “fake news” and emphasized the proposed rule reflects historic definitions [4]. By contrast, professional associations — e.g., the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and the American Nurses Association — say excluding nursing contradicts parity the health professions have long sought and will harm workforce capacity [3] [2].
4. Stakes for students and institutions — competing perspectives
Advocates for broader inclusion warn that capping or reducing federal borrowing for students in high‑cost fields (nursing, therapy, education, allied health) will deter or delay entry into those careers and exacerbate workforce shortages; AACN and university associations explicitly link the change to potential declines in program enrollment and training capacity [3] [5]. Supporters of the department’s narrower definition argue it applies an established regulatory standard and is part of implementing statutory loan‑limit reforms in H.R.1 aimed at simplifying aid and reducing graduate borrowing [4] [1].
5. What reporting does and does not show — limits in the record
Contemporary reporting provides multiple lists and reaction statements but does not publish a single definitive official final rule text in these sources; sources describe a committee consensus to limit professional programs to roughly 11 primary areas and “some doctoral programs,” and they enumerate many fields being excluded, especially nursing [5] [1]. Available sources do not mention the full, final regulatory language or an exhaustive official list that would settle every program’s status; they report proposals, committee drafts, and departmental and industry responses rather than a finalized federal register rule text [5] [4].
6. How to evaluate claims going forward
If you need a definitive program‑by‑program determination, consult the Department of Education’s final rule or an updated federal register notice once published; until then, rely on coalition statements and reporting as provisional indicators — nursing and many allied‑health and education programs are repeatedly cited as excluded in current coverage, while the department emphasizes regulatory continuity [1] [3] [4]. Watch for formal agency rule publication and institution‑level advisories, and expect litigation and legislative pushback from affected professional associations and universities [5] [2].