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 definitions and examples for each of the 11 professional categories listed by the U.S. Department of Education?
Executive summary
The Department of Education — via a RISE negotiated rulemaking tied to OBBBA/H.R.1 — agreed to recognize a narrow set of programs as “professional” and ultimately limited that list to 11 primary programs (plus some doctoral programs), which determines who can access higher loan limits ($50k annual/$200k aggregate for professional programs vs. $20,500/$100k for graduate programs) [1] [2]. Reporting and higher‑education groups warn the draft definition excludes many health and social‑work fields (e.g., MPH, DrPH, social work, advanced nursing), potentially reducing access to larger federal loans; organizations such as CSWE and ASPPH explicitly raised objections [3] [4].
1. What the Department of Education negotiated and why it matters
In late‑2025 negotiated rulemaking, the Education Department and the RISE committee drafted a new regulatory definition of “professional degree” to implement loan caps from OBBBA/H.R.1; the designation controls whether students are eligible for the higher professional‑degree loan limits and whether Grad PLUS is preserved for them — changes that will take effect for new borrowers starting July 1, 2026 [1] [2]. The stakes are financial: graduate students in programs classified as “professional” would face much higher annual and aggregate federal borrowing caps than other graduate students [1].
2. The “11 primary programs” outcome and what that means
By the end of the RISE session, the department and committee “agreed to recognize only 11 primary programs as well as some doctoral programs as professional degree programs,” narrowing eligibility from many hundreds or thousands of program titles to a short list; that reduction will determine which programs’ students can access the $200,000 aggregate higher loan limit [2]. Available reporting describes the outcome (11 core programs plus some doctoral exceptions) but does not list the 11 fields in the provided excerpts; the precise eleven-program list is not quoted in the available sources [2].
3. Examples cited historically and in drafting discussions
OBBBA and the department’s earlier regulatory language used examples such as Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) and Dentistry (D.D.S.) to illustrate the traditional idea of “professional” degrees, and negotiators referenced similar exemplars during talks [1]. However, the final draft intentionally sharply narrows the recognized set to a defined set of program types rather than the wide array historically treated as professional [1] [2].
4. Who objected — public‑health and social‑work groups
The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) and the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) publicly criticized the RISE draft for excluding social work and many public‑health degrees (MPH, DrPH) from the professional category, warning that exclusion would constrain student access to higher loan limits and could harm workforce pipelines in healthcare and public health [3] [4]. CSWE urged using CIP codes for Health Professions to avoid unjustified exclusions [3].
5. Institutional and research‑university concerns
Leading research universities and associations (e.g., AAU) flagged that terminating Grad PLUS and narrowing “professional” classifications will constrain graduate financing and could “threaten access” to many professional programs; their summaries note the RISE committee’s consensus to restrict the professional set to 11 primary programs and some doctorates [2]. They framed this as a policy choice with wide implications for enrollment, program offerings, and workforce supply [2].
6. Procedural context and what remains unresolved
Negotiated rulemaking is ongoing and the department indicated some legacy provisions and guidance (for health professions previously eligible for extra borrowing) might be handled via Dear Colleague letters rather than formal rule changes — leaving practical implementation details and timelines (NPRM, DCL) still in play [5]. Reporting underscores that the rules’ downstream effects — which exact CIP codes map to the 11 program categories and which doctoral programs are included — were still matters of negotiation or guidance [5] [2].
7. Limitations of current reporting and recommended next steps
Available sources in this packet report the high‑level outcome (11 primary programs + some doctorates) and give examples and objections, but they do not publish the exact list of the 11 program categories in the excerpts provided here; for the definitive list and precise CIP‑code mappings, consult the Department of Education’s negotiated‑rulemaking documents, the forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or the text of the draft regulations and any published Dear Colleague letters [2] [5]. Reporters and affected programs should track ED’s NPRM and official guidance and review advocacy statements from CSWE, ASPPH, and AAU to see which fields were included or excluded [3] [4] [2].