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.
Did any universities challenge or request waivers to the DOE's 2025 professional versus non‑professional degree criteria?
Executive summary
Available reporting in the provided set does not document any universities formally challenging or requesting waivers to the U.S. Department of Education’s 2025 proposal defining “professional” versus “non‑professional” degree criteria; coverage instead focuses on the DOE proposal’s substance (e.g., requiring doctoral level status, six years of instruction, and specific CIP codes) and broader higher‑education trends such as shorter degree models and skills‑focused pathways [1] [2]. The specific allegation—that universities filed challenges or waiver requests against the DOE’s 2025 rule— is not found in the current reporting (available sources do not mention universities challenging or seeking waivers) [1] [2].
1. What the DOE proposal actually says — a clear target for pushback
Inside Higher Ed’s summary of the Department of Education’s 2025 proposal lays out strict criteria for a program to count as “professional” and access higher federal loan caps: it must require a level of skill beyond a bachelor’s degree, be at the doctoral level (with a limited exception for Master of Divinity), demand at least six years of academic instruction (including at least two post‑baccalaureate), and be in a specific four‑digit CIP code tied to 11 named professions [1]. That combination—especially the six‑year/doctorate threshold and narrow CIP‑code list—creates a tight definition that would reshape which programs qualify for the highest federal support and therefore provides an obvious locus where universities or accreditors might object [1].
2. No direct reporting of formal university challenges or waiver requests
Among the supplied results there is direct coverage of what the DOE proposed (Inside Higher Ed) and multiple pieces on broader higher‑education trends and experimentation, but none document universities submitting formal challenges, lawsuits, or waiver petitions to the DOE over the 2025 professional‑degree criteria. The sources do not report any university legal actions, waiver filings, or formal comments by identifiable colleges seeking exceptions to the rule (available sources do not mention universities challenging or seeking waivers) [1] [2].
3. Context: why institutions might be expected to object — and why they might not
Universities have incentives to contest a narrow federal definition: programs that lose “professional” status could be disadvantaged in loan eligibility, recruitment, or perceived prestige. The tighter rule’s emphasis on doctoral‑level credentials and specific CIP codes could exclude accelerated, skills‑based, or three‑year bachelor’s innovations that institutions are piloting (for example, “degree‑in‑three” models and reduced credit pathways noted in Deloitte’s coverage of 2025 trends) — a natural source of institutional friction [2]. At the same time, the supplied reporting emphasizes experimentation and state moves supporting three‑year degrees [2], suggesting some institutions may instead be pursuing alternative pathways and state policy routes rather than direct federal litigation or waiver requests [2].
4. Alternative avenues of influence beyond lawsuits or waivers
If universities were dissatisfied, they could respond in multiple ways not captured in these sources: coordinated public comment during rulemaking, lobbying Congress or the Department, seeking clarifying guidance from accreditors, or redesigning programs to fit new criteria. The current materials show discussion of evolving degree formats and policy debate in higher ed, but they do not document which of these strategies universities actually used in response to the DOE proposal (available sources do not mention specific institutional responses such as public comments or lobbying tied to the DOE rule) [2] [1].
5. What reporters and stakeholders focused on instead
The provided coverage centers on the DOE’s technical definition and the broader sector trends: Inside Higher Ed analyzed the draft rule’s thresholds and how it compares to prior proposals [1]; Deloitte cataloged institutional innovations like three‑year degrees and competency‑based approaches, illustrating the wider tension between federal funding categories and on‑the‑ground program design [1] [2]. That editorial focus implies the debate was framed around policy design and higher‑ed adaptation rather than documented legal battles in the materials here [2] [1].
6. Limitations and next steps for verification
This analysis uses only the supplied search results. If you want definitive confirmation about challenges, waiver requests, or formal public comments from specific universities, the available sources do not provide that information; you should consult DOE rulemaking dockets, Federal Register notices, university press releases, or Inside Higher Ed and education‑policy reporting archives beyond the set provided (available sources do not mention such filings) [1].