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 degrees does the U.S. Department of Education classify as nonprofessional for 2026?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s negotiated-rulemaking work for implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) would sharply narrow which graduate programs count as “professional” for higher loan caps starting July 1, 2026, excluding many degrees that previously had been treated as professional — notably nursing and public health in the draft consensus — and recognizing only about 11 primary fields plus some doctoral programs as professional [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and stakeholder reactions confirm that this change would reduce eligibility for the higher $50,000-per-year / $200,000 aggregate “professional” loan limits and shift many programs into lower graduate limits of $20,500 per year / $100,000 aggregate beginning July 1, 2026 [4] [2].
1. What the Department is proposing: a much narrower “professional” category
Negotiators on the Department’s RISE committee reached consensus draft language that limits the number of programs designated as professional to roughly 11 core program fields, plus some doctoral programs; this reduces the universe of programs that qualify for the larger professional loan caps [1] [5]. NewAmerica’s takeaways explain the intent to codify a distinct professional-versus-graduate definition and note the aggressive July 1, 2026 implementation timeline [2].
2. Which degrees have been singled out for exclusion (nursing, public health, others)
Multiple organizations and outlets report the Department’s draft would exclude advanced nursing degrees and public health degrees from the professional-degree definition, prompting alarm from nursing and public-health advocates [6] [3] [7]. Newsweek, the Statesman, and the AACN have highlighted nursing’s removal from the list of professional degrees in the Department’s draft, and ASPPH flagged the exclusion of public health degrees [6] [4] [7] [3].
3. Why this matters for student loan limits and programs
Under the new regime described in reporting, students enrolled in programs classified as “professional” would keep higher borrowing limits ($50,000 annually; $200,000 lifetime), while students in graduate programs not designated professional would face lower limits ($20,500 annually; $100,000 lifetime) — and Grad PLUS loans would be eliminated July 1, 2026 — substantially changing financing for many advanced healthcare and related degrees [4] [2] [1].
4. How the Department is defining “professional” in practice
The Department’s draft uses a narrow combination of criteria — including mapping to specific 4‑digit CIP code groupings — so that programs that don’t share those CIP codes with the 11 named fields are not treated as professional even if they resemble professional programs in practice [5] [8]. NASFAA explains that programs similar to professional fields may be excluded solely because of CIP-code differences [8].
5. Institutional and stakeholder pushback and concerns
Higher-education associations and professional groups warn the narrowed list will reduce access to advanced training in fields already facing workforce shortages: nursing groups (AACN), public-health advocates (ASPPH), and university associations (AAU) have all publicly criticized the proposal and said it threatens access and workforce pipelines [7] [3] [1]. Commentators on social platforms echo these concerns, saying the proposed change would shrink the list of professional programs dramatically [9].
6. What’s still uncertain or not covered in current reporting
Available sources do not provide a definitive, itemized list of every degree reclassified as “nonprofessional” beyond repeated references to nursing and public health and to a broader reduction from thousands to hundreds of codes; the final NPRM was expected in early 2026 and many details remain tentative pending formal rulemaking [2] [5]. Specific program-by-program determinations, legacy/transition rules for currently enrolled students, and how institutions might set lower institutional limits are described in principle but not fully enumerated in the available reporting [8] [10].
7. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
The Department and negotiators frame the change as an effort to implement statutory loan caps and draw clearer lines between graduate and professional borrowing; higher-education groups argue the change is administratively driven and will harm professional workforce pipelines [2] [1]. Professional associations such as AACN and ASPPH present an explicit advocacy agenda to restore nursing and public health to the professional category; NASFAA and institutional negotiators flag operational and equity concerns about sudden shifts for students and aid officers [7] [3] [5] [8].
8. Practical next steps for affected students and institutions
Negotiators expect the Department to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with a public comment period in early 2026, and schools and professional groups are preparing comment campaigns; institutions may also set program-by-program institutional limits that could further affect access [2] [3] [8]. Stakeholders concerned about exclusions (nursing, public health, etc.) should monitor the NPRM and plan to submit formal comments and advocacy during the rulemaking window [3].
If you want, I can compile the specific programs and CIP-code ranges mentioned in the Department’s issue papers and stakeholder briefs cited above to produce a provisional checklist of at-risk degrees based on those sources (note: public reporting so far stops short of a finalized, exhaustive list) [5] [8].