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 are the 11 professional categories recognized by the U.S. Department of Education?
Executive summary
The Department of Education and its RISE committee recently narrowed which graduate programs count as “professional degrees,” agreeing to recognize only 11 primary program categories for higher loan limits under H.R.1; that change drives the current debate because it could cut federal loan access for many health and social‑service fields [1]. Reporting and stakeholders emphasize the stakes: professional degree status determines whether students are eligible for larger aggregate loan limits ($200,000 vs. $100,000) beginning July 1, 2026 [2] [1].
1. What the Department and the RISE committee actually agreed
A Department‑convened Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) committee negotiated draft regulations that would sharply limit which graduate programs are designated “professional” for the purpose of higher student loan caps; by the end of the session the group “agreed to recognize only 11 primary programs as well as some doctoral programs as professional degree programs” [1]. Those designations are being written to implement H.R.1’s new loan ceilings, which set a $200,000 aggregate cap for professional‑degree students versus $100,000 for other graduate students starting July 1, 2026 [2].
2. Why the number “11” matters — financial and workforce consequences
The distinction matters because professional designation unlocks larger borrowing limits previously available through Graduate PLUS loans, which the bill phases out; institutions and associations warn that excluding many health and social‑service programs could restrict students’ ability to finance training in fields such as public health, social work and certain clinical professions [1] [3] [4]. The Association of American Universities and public‑health advocates frame the reduction to 11 fields as a material narrowing with “significant implications” for workforce pipelines [1] [3].
3. Who is objecting, and on what grounds
Professional and health‑education organizations — including the Council on Social Work Education and the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health — argue the proposed definition and resulting exclusions could limit access to federal financing for critical healthcare and social‑service professions, and urge using Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes (particularly CIP 51 for health professions) to avoid arbitrary exclusions [4] [3]. These groups say the RISE framework’s rubric risks excluding programs that meet practice‑entry requirements even if their program length or credential differs from traditional models [4].
4. Where the Department’ s original/regulatory language factors in
OBBBA and earlier regulations provided a precedent for which fields counted as professional degrees — for example, naming Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) and Dentistry (D.D.S.) — but the current rulemaking process allowed the Department and negotiators to craft a new multi‑part rubric and to narrow the list for loan eligibility [2]. Negotiators debated interim approaches and alternative lists; some participants argued for broader inclusion while the Department proposed a narrower set before settling on the limited recognition described above [2] [5].
5. What remains unclear or not found in reporting
Available sources document that 11 primary programs were agreed to, and that some doctoral programs may still qualify, but they do not publish the exact list of those 11 program categories in the excerpts provided here — the specific named fields are not found in the current reporting supplied [1] [2]. Detailed, itemized lists and the full regulatory text or Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would be needed to confirm precisely which programs are included or excluded [5].
6. Competing perspectives and possible agendas
Higher‑education associations and public‑health groups present a workforce‑protection argument: narrower eligibility will hinder recruitment into essential professions [3] [4]. The Department and supporters of the rule argue the change streamlines eligibility and aligns loan policy with legislative intent to limit high borrowing and target larger loan limits to traditional professional degrees [2] [5]. Some public reporting connects the policy to broader policy aims reflected in Project 2025 and administration priorities to shrink the Education Department’s role — a political context critics say could influence the scope of program inclusion [6] [7].
7. What to watch next
Stakeholders expect a Dear Colleague letter, an NPRM, and further guidance from ED, and they urge close review and public comment when the NPRM is published; institutions and professional groups are already mobilizing to press the Department to use CIP codes or other criteria that would preserve access for health and social‑service professions [5] [4] [3]. The rule’s final language will determine which exact programs are among the 11 recognized categories and whether any additional doctoral programs retain professional status [1] [2].
Limitations: this summary relies solely on the supplied sources and their excerpts; those sources report that “11 primary programs” were agreed to but the exact program list is not printed in the materials provided here [1] [2].