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.
Where in the big beautiful bill does it mention what field is a professional degree
Executive summary
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) itself does not list specific professions; instead the Department of Education (ED) is implementing a regulatory definition of “professional degree” to determine who gets higher loan limits, and that implementation has led ED to exclude fields such as nursing, audiology, speech‑language pathology, and some public‑health degrees from the category [1] [2] [3]. Under the OBBBA/RISE committee outcome, professional students would be eligible for higher aggregate loan limits ($200,000 vs. $100,000 for other grad students), and ED’s proposed test emphasizes degree level and licensure preparation rather than naming every field in the statute [4] [5] [1].
1. Where the bill speaks — and where it doesn’t: statute vs. regulation
The reconciliation bill (OBBBA) uses the phrase “professional degree” to set higher loan caps but does not enumerate every occupation; instead it points to an existing regulatory definition in CFR 668.2 as the starting point and directs implementation through the Department of Education’s rulemaking [6] [7]. NAICU’s FAQ stresses that “there is nothing in the bill to provide consideration for professions at all, let alone specific professions,” meaning the statute leaves the practical determination to ED and its negotiated rulemaking [7].
2. How ED is defining “professional degree” for loan eligibility
In its negotiated rulemaking and related proposals, ED and the RISE committee have set out criteria: programs must require study beyond a bachelor’s degree, typically be doctoral‑level (with narrow exceptions like a Master of Divinity), and prepare students for occupations requiring licensure — a functional test rather than a profession‑name list [1] [5]. Inside Higher Ed summarized the department’s proposal that the degree level and licensure preparation are key gates for the “professional” label [1].
3. The practical consequence: higher loan caps tied to the definition
Under the committee’s consensus, students in programs classified as “professional” can borrow more — up to $50,000 per year and $200,000 aggregate as the policy states — while other graduate students face a lower annual and aggregate cap ($20,500/year; $100,000 aggregate for new borrowers per ED’s press release) [4] [5]. AEI’s commentary emphasized the policy intent to limit total borrowing and tie the higher cap to programs that meet the professional test [5].
4. Which fields have been highlighted or excluded so far
ED’s recent proposals and committee work have led to specific, high‑profile exclusions: nursing programs (including advanced nursing degrees) have been publicly identified as not counting as “professional degrees” under ED’s approach, and advocacy groups report audiology and speech‑language pathology are also not included in the department’s proposed definition [2] [8] [9]. ASPPH and other public‑health organizations reported that some public‑health degrees were likewise left out of the department’s professional definition in the proposed rules [3].
5. Who is objecting and why — competing perspectives
Nursing organizations, the American Speech‑Language‑Hearing Association, public‑health schools, and other groups argue ED’s interpretation will deny students in those fields access to higher loan limits, disproportionately affecting women and working‑class learners and potentially exacerbating workforce shortages [2] [10] [11]. Proponents of tighter definitions — including some policy commentators — argue that limiting higher loan caps to programs that demonstrably prepare students for licensed professions prevents graduate programs from enabling excessive borrowing for low‑return degrees and helps curb tuition inflation [5] [6].
6. Procedural next steps and legal uncertainty
ED’s negotiated rulemaking (the RISE committee) has reached consensus positions, and ED published proposals and press releases describing implementation timelines (e.g., caps effective July 2026 for new borrowers), but these rulemakings and the department’s proposed list/criteria are subject to public comment, institutional pushback, and possible litigation — so definitions could change [4] [1]. New America and NASFAA pieces note that although the definition builds on preexisting regulatory text as of July 4, 2025, how it plays out for students and institutions remains uncertain [6] [11].
7. Bottom line for your question — “Where in the bill does it mention what field is a professional degree?”
The OBBBA does not name specific fields; it delegates the practical determination to the Department of Education by referencing regulatory definitions and requiring ED rulemaking to implement loan‑related provisions [6] [7]. The current controversy arises because ED’s proposed regulatory test and negotiated outcomes classify programs by degree level and licensure preparation rather than by listing professions, producing visible exclusions (nursing, audiology, speech‑language pathology, some public‑health programs) in the department’s proposals [1] [2] [3].
Limitations: available sources do not mention the complete final regulatory text (only proposals, committee consensus, and advocacy reactions), and further changes could result from public comments or litigation [1] [4].