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.
Were medical, engineering, or STEM fields targeted differently than humanities in the reclassification?
Executive summary
Universities and immigration programs have been reclassifying certain majors — notably economics and some business degrees — into STEM categories, which changes scholarship eligibility and immigration benefits such as the 24‑month STEM OPT extension for F‑1 students (example: JMU and UC Davis reporting reclassifications)[1][2]. At the same time, national immigration systems (Canada’s Express Entry) narrowed and reshaped who counts as “STEM” in 2025, removing many occupations and adding a few, so STEM gains for some academic programs do not translate into universal preferential treatment across all policy areas [3][4].
1. Reclassification in higher education: who’s moving into “STEM” and why
Several universities have pursued administrative reclassification of majors such as economics (B.A. and B.S.) and some business programs into STEM categories to align with labor markets, unlock STEM‑tagged scholarships, and secure immigration advantages for international students — for example, James Madison University’s announcement and reporting on other campuses’ changes highlight scholarship access and the 24‑month OPT benefit as explicit motivations [1][2]. Campus reporting and opinion pieces show departments and students often frame the move as pragmatic: reclassification can make graduates more marketable and extend post‑graduation work authorization for F‑1 visa holders [1][2].
2. Immigration policy is a separate gatekeeper: STEM status doesn’t mean uniform treatment
Even when universities relabel majors as STEM, national immigration programs independently define which occupations or credentials count. Canada’s February 2025 Express Entry overhaul trimmed the STEM category from many occupations down to 11 and removed dozens of previously eligible roles, meaning academic reclassification does not automatically restore eligibility for category‑based draws or preferential invitations in Canada [3][4]. Reporting on Express Entry notes 19 occupations were removed and six added in 2025, underlining that “STEM” is a contested, policy‑driven label rather than a single academic reality [5][6].
3. Visa advantages that drive reclassification: the STEM OPT example
U.S. university actions are often driven by the practical benefit of a 24‑month STEM OPT extension for F‑1 students: students with degrees designated as STEM can apply for this extension of Optional Practical Training and thereby remain longer in the U.S. workforce after graduation, which campuses advertise when they publicize reclassification [2][7]. Campus opinion pieces criticize this incentive structure as creating an implicit hierarchy that privileges STEM over humanities and may influence curriculum and recruitment decisions [8]. The practical effect is real for students, even as critics argue it distorts academic priorities [2][8].
4. Humanities vs. STEM: broader trends and the political context
Longer‑term enrollment and funding trends show STEM share has grown while humanities shares fell in prior years, prompting debate over whether higher education is privileging technical fields [9]. Commentators and campus writers frame reclassification partly as a response to that market pressure; others warn that privileging STEM via immigration or scholarship rules risks disincentivizing humanities study and undervaluing skills those fields cultivate [10][8][11]. There are competing views: some analysts and colleges emphasize complementary approaches or interdisciplinary programs (Humanistic STEM / H‑STEM) that merge strengths from both sides [12].
5. What the evidence in current reporting does — and does not — show
Current reporting shows concrete cases of economics and related majors being administratively reclassified to STEM and links that to scholarships and visa benefits [1][2]. It also shows national immigration categories being independently narrowed or reshaped, notably Canada’s Express Entry changes in 2025 [3][4]. Available sources do not mention a single, unified nationwide policy that systematically targeted all medical, engineering, or STEM fields differently than every humanities program in a single reclassification event; instead, reclassification appears fragmented (institutional decisions) and policy definitions vary by jurisdiction (not found in current reporting).
6. Implications for students, universities and policymakers
Students: reclassification can produce tangible benefits (scholarships, longer OPT) but outcomes depend on the receiving country’s immigration definitions [1][4]. Universities: administrative relabeling is a strategic tool responding to labor and visa incentives, but it invites criticism that administrative convenience trumps disciplinary identity [2][8]. Policymakers: if the goal is balanced workforce development, reclassification debates expose a mismatch between higher‑education incentives and immigration/skills policy—Canada’s narrowing of STEM occupations shows policymakers will and do redraw lines in response to labour priorities [3][6].
Bottom line: some medical/engineering/STEM‑adjacent majors have received distinct treatment through institutional reclassification to secure scholarships and OPT benefits, but the effect is uneven and tempered by separate, changing immigration definitions—especially in Canada—so the practical advantages vary by program and country [1][3][4].