Which 11 professional degrees did the Department of Education add and when were they approved?

1. What the Department of Education actually proposed — a tight new list

ED’s negotiators and public reporting describe a proposal to sharply curtail which graduate programs count as “professional,” collapsing a prior, broader understanding into a shorter, enumerated list of 11 categories. News outlets and sector groups say ED’s RISE committee or negotiators advanced language to limit the roster of professional degrees to roughly 11 program types as part of implementing OBBBA’s new loan caps and professional‑student borrowing rules ^{[5] [4]}. Several outlets summarize that the change would reduce eligible programs from about 2,000 to fewer than 600 programs under the new interpretation ^{[6] [7]}.

2. Which 11 program categories are reported as “professional”

Multiple news and advocacy reports list the programs ED classified as professional; the coverage consistently notes core law, medicine, and similar traditional categories while highlighting that many health and education fields were omitted from the list that ED proposed. Reporting cites the 11 categories as including (but not limited to) medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, law, architecture, theology, and other historically listed professions — while noting other fields (like advanced nursing, public health, audiology, speech‑language pathology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, physician assistant, social work, and education master’s) are being excluded from the professional label in the department’s proposal ^{[1] [8] [9] [5]}. Exact enumerations vary across stories; ED documents underpinning the negotiation language were discussed publicly at the negotiated rulemaking sessions ^[4].

3. Timing — when the change was proposed and discussed

Coverage and organizational statements date the core activity to November 2025. The RISE committee reached preliminary consensus language and ED negotiators unveiled the proposed definition in mid‑ to late‑November, with widespread reporting — and reactions from nursing, public health, audiology and speech pathology organizations — appearing around November 10–24, 2025 ^{[3] [5] [4]}. News outlets and professional associations published responses and analyses throughout that period ^{[2] [3] [5]}.

4. Why the list matters — loan caps and program access

Under OBBBA’s loan architecture, students enrolled in programs ED labels “professional” can access higher annual and lifetime borrowing limits (reporting cites examples like $50,000 annually and larger lifetime allowances), while students in programs not so labeled face much lower caps ^{[1] [5]}. Critics — including the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, ASHA, and public health groups — warn that excluding fields like nursing, MPH/DrPH, audiology, and speech‑language pathology will reduce access to graduate education in essential health and social care professions ^{[8] [2] [3]}.

5. Disagreements and gaps in the public record

Media outlets and professional groups agree that ED’s proposal narrows the definition, but they differ on the precise 11 categories or on whether particular programs were explicitly included or excluded in the department’s working text. Some reporting lists specific programs omitted (nursing, public health, many allied health fields) while ED’s negotiators told committees the definition is meant to hew to a 1965 regulatory baseline, even as critics call the interpretation unusually narrow ^{[1] [4]}. The provided sources do not include an official, side‑by‑side ED list of the full 11 categories as a single authoritative table; available sources do not mention a verbatim, final list signed into regulation in these excerpts ^[4].

6. What professional associations are saying

Associations for nursing, audiology/speech‑language pathology, and public health publicly opposed the proposal, saying exclusion from the professional category contradicts precedent and would weaken workforce pipelines; ASHA and AACN issued explicit statements urging ED to include those professions to preserve student loan access ^{[8] [2] [3]}. ED defended its approach in public negotiation sessions as an effort to align with statutory intent and to curb excessive graduate borrowing in programs ED deems non‑professional ^{[4] [5]}.

7. How to read competing narratives

ED and some commentators frame the change as a fiscal and accountability measure intended to limit high graduate borrowing for degrees that “don’t pay off,” while affected professions and many news outlets frame it as a reclassification that will impose financial barriers on essential healthcare and education pipelines ^{[7] [8] [3]}. Readers should note that summaries circulating online (e.g., social posts) amplify claims about program counts dropped from ~2,000 to <600 and list specific exclusions — those figures and lists are reported in multiple outlets but the exact statutory text and final regulatory list are not reproduced in the sources provided here ^{[6] [7]}.

If you want, I can compile the specific program lists reported by each outlet side‑by‑side and highlight exact wording used in the RISE negotiated rulemaking notes ^[4], or search for the ED’s published proposed regulatory text to confirm the precise 11 categories and their legal wording.