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 universities have recently discontinued professional degrees and why?
Executive summary
Several reports show not universities closing professional-degree programs, but the U.S. Department of Education’s recent negotiated rulemaking has redefined which graduate programs count as “professional,” shrinking the list of eligible programs and threatening students’ access to higher federal loan limits; critics warn this could exclude nursing, public health, social work and other health professions from the higher loan caps [1] [2] [3]. Supporters of the change argue it reins in runaway borrowing and tuition growth; opponents say it will reduce access to essential workforce pipelines and worsen shortages in health and social services [4] [2] [3].
1. What changed: a federal redefinition, not campus-by-campus program closures
The recent action described across reporting and advocacy pieces is a Department of Education negotiated-rulemaking outcome that proposes a tighter definition of “professional degree programs,” which would determine which graduate programs qualify for higher federal loan caps under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) — this is a regulatory reclassification, not an announcement that universities are discontinuing degrees [1] [5].
2. Who stands to lose “professional” status — and thereby greater loan access
Advocates and professional associations note that the RISE committee’s draft definition would exclude a number of public‑health, social‑work, nursing and allied‑health programs from the professional category, limiting those students to lower annual and aggregate loan caps [2] [3] [5]. Commentary and social posts list programs such as advanced nursing degrees, physician assistants, occupational therapy and audiology among those at risk of losing professional designation under the proposed list reduction from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 programs [6] [7].
3. Why loan classification matters: concrete dollar limits and workforce consequences
Under OBBBA’s framework, students in programs designated “professional” could borrow up to $50,000 per year (and $200,000 aggregate), while other graduate students would face lower caps (for example, $20,500 annually and $100,000 aggregate as discussed in analyses), so losing the label is a direct reduction in borrowing capacity with potential consequences for students’ ability to finance expensive clinical or advanced‑practice training [5]. Public‑health and nursing groups warn that restricting borrowing could make advanced training less attainable and aggravate shortages in frontline fields [2] [8].
4. Competing rationales: fiscal restraint vs. workforce and equity concerns
Policy analysts and conservative-leaning commentators praise the narrowed definition as a tool to constrain excessive graduate borrowing and to prevent universities from passing costs to taxpayers and students, citing examples where heavy borrowing in lower‑earning fields raised concerns [4]. By contrast, professional organizations — e.g., the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health and the Council on Social Work Education — argue that excluding degrees like the MPH, DrPH, MSW and advanced nursing degrees will undercut essential pipelines, especially for public‑interest and clinical service professions [2] [3].
5. How institutions are reacting and what’s next in the rulemaking process
Advocacy groups are mobilizing to comment during the Department’s forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and asking institutions to submit feedback; the department’s proposal came out of negotiated rulemaking and is expected to open a 30‑day public comment period—so the change is not yet final and may face formal comments and litigation [2] [5]. The American Enterprise Institute and others framed the negotiated consensus as welcome; universities and professional groups describe it as threatening to access for critical professions [4] [3].
6. What this does not show: universities systematically “discontinuing” professional degrees
Available sources do not report that universities have broadly discontinued professional degree programs; instead, the central action is a federal redefinition that would alter loan eligibility for students in many programs — a regulatory lever that could indirectly influence program viability but is not the same as institutions announcing closures (not found in current reporting).
7. Practical implications for prospective students and institutions
If the Department finalizes a narrower professional‑degree list, students in affected programs could face lower federal loan caps and greater out‑of‑pocket cost pressure; institutions that rely on student borrowing for tuition revenue might retool enrollment strategies or program structures, and professional associations warn this could reduce the pipeline in fields already deemed short on workers [5] [2] [8].
Limitations: reporting in the provided set focuses on the federal rulemaking, stakeholder reactions and advocacy; it does not include a finalized regulation or empirical modeling of how many programs will close or how enrollments will shift if the rule is adopted (not found in current reporting).