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.
Which institutions or accrediting bodies initiated the reclassification of those degrees as non-professional?
Executive summary
The reclassification effort originates from actions by the U.S. Department of Education — specifically work by a Department-convened committee called the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) committee that negotiated draft regulations to implement student loan provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill / H.R.1; that committee's draft narrows which programs qualify as “professional,” excluding many health degrees including nursing and public health [1] [2]. News outlets and professional associations report the Department’s change or proposal as the initiating move; affected professions and membership groups (e.g., American Nurses Association, ASPPH) are actively protesting and petitioning in response [3] [2].
1. Who pushed the reclassification — Department of Education and its RISE committee
The immediate actor initiating the reclassification is the U.S. Department of Education, which convened the RISE committee to draft regulatory language to implement student loan provisions from H.R.1 / the One Big Beautiful Bill; that committee reached a consensus draft that would “limit the number of degree programs that can be considered as ‘professional’” and recognize only a narrowed set of programs as professional degree programs [1]. Association reporting says the committee’s negotiations produced language that excludes several areas formerly treated as professional, and the Department is preparing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to formalize the change [2] [1].
2. What mechanisms were used — rulemaking and a consensus draft
Sources describe this as regulatory rulemaking rather than an accreditor-led change: the Department’s RISE committee drafted proposed definitions and lists of included programs, and the Department is expected to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and open a comment period — the standard administrative mechanism to change federal definitions that govern loan eligibility [2] [1]. NASFAA and other higher-education groups document committee deliberations and public comments on the proposed language, indicating this is being driven through ED’s negotiated rulemaking process [4] [5].
3. Accrediting bodies and institutions — not credited as initiators in current reporting
Available sources do not mention an accrediting body (e.g., regional accreditors, professional accreditors) or individual universities as having initiated the reclassification; rather, coverage attributes the change to Department of Education efforts and its RISE committee drafting of new regulatory definitions [1] [2]. Public comments on NASFAA threads call on the Department to retain professional-degree status for nursing and other programs, showing institutions and professions responding to — not initiating — the rule [5] [4].
4. Who’s pushing back — professional associations and higher-education groups
Multiple professional associations and university organizations are publicly opposing the Department’s proposal. The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) warned that exclusion of MPH and DrPH degrees could harm the public health workforce and encouraged institutions to submit comments during the rulemaking period [2]. News outlets report nurses and nursing organizations launching petitions and protests after Newsweek and others covered the Department’s exclusion of nursing [3] [6]. The Association of American Universities framed the change as a threat to access to professional-degree programs and highlighted the RISE committee’s narrowing of eligible programs [1].
5. Conflicting statements and official pushback
The Department of Education's press office has disputed some media characterizations: Newsweek records a Department spokesperson (Ellen Keast) saying the Department “has had a consistent definition” and that the consensus-based language aligns with historical precedent, framing some coverage as “fake news at its finest” [6]. This shows a direct disagreement between Department messaging and coverage or interpretation by professional groups and some outlets [6] [3].
6. Practical stakes and why actors care
Sources emphasize the practical driver behind the fight: classification as a “professional degree” affects federal graduate loan limits and eligibility for programs like GRAD PLUS or the new caps and Repayment Assistance Plan proposed under OBBBA/H.R.1; narrowing which degrees qualify can reduce borrowing capacity for graduate students in affected fields, prompting professional groups and institutions to mobilize [7] [3] [1]. Commenters in NASFAA threads frame reclassification as a threat to access, workforce pipelines, and equity for working and low-income students [5].
7. Limitations and open questions
Current reporting consistently points to the Department and its RISE negotiated-rulemaking committee as the initiators [1] [2] [6]. Available sources do not name any accrediting agency or college system as the originator of the reclassification; they instead document professional associations and university bodies reacting and commenting in the regulatory process [4] [5]. It remains to be seen how the formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will read and whether final regulations will differ after the public comment period [2].
If you want, I can compile the explicit list of programs the committee proposed to keep or remove as “professional” based on these sources and track the Department’s official rulemaking documents as they appear.