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 accreditation bodies ordered the reclassification of certain degrees as non-professional?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows the U.S. Department of Education (ED) negotiators and the RISE committee have proposed narrowing which post‑baccalaureate programs qualify as “professional degrees,” a move that could reclassify degrees such as public‑health MPHs/DrPHs out of that category and alter loan caps and related benefits [1] [2]. Negotiations include negotiator meetings, proposed language allowing institutions to designate programs as professional, and stakeholder pushback about omissions and transitional protections for students enrolled by certain dates [3] [4].
1. What bodies are driving the reclassification push — federal committees and ED negotiators
The principal actors in the current reclassification debate are the Department of Education’s Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee and ED negotiators who have been developing a new definition of “professional degree” under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA); RISE reached a preliminary consensus that would exclude some degrees such as public health from the professional‑degree definition [1] [2]. Inside Higher Ed’s coverage and ED’s Under Secretary Nicholas Kent’s presentations show ED staff are the ones circulating proposals that determine which degree programs get access to higher federal loan caps [2].
2. Accreditation bodies and professional associations — reacting, not explicitly ordering reclassification
Available sources do not report any accreditation body (for example, Council for Higher Education Accreditation or discipline‑specific accreditors) formally ordering degrees to be reclassified as non‑professional. Instead, professional associations such as the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH) are publicly protesting ED’s proposal because it would exclude MPH and DrPH degrees from the professional category and thereby affect students’ loan eligibility [1]. That reporting frames professional associations as opponents of the ED proposal, not as originators of reclassification.
3. What the ED proposals actually do and the mechanism for designation
ED’s latest proposal sets objective criteria for a “professional” program to access the highest loan caps — for example, requiring skill beyond the bachelor’s level — and initially listed only a small set of eligible degrees before modestly expanding that list [2]. Negotiations also produced language allowing institutions to designate a program as a professional degree — for instance, via IPEDS reporting or “clear and conspicuous” marketing to students — which creates an administrative pathway for institutions to retain professional status for programs if they choose [4].
4. Who is pushing back and why — disciplines and negotiators raise omissions
Professional stakeholders and negotiators representing institutions have raised concerns that the ED’s list omits numerous graduate health and allied professions (physician assistant, nurse practitioner, physical and occupational therapy, counseling) and graduate nursing specializations; participants on negotiation platforms explicitly asked ED to add CIP codes or program types to the professional list [3]. ASPPH called ED’s preliminary RISE consensus “alarming,” warning exclusion of public‑health degrees could limit federal loan access and harm workforce pipelines [1].
5. Transitional protections and enrollment cutoffs — a partial safety valve
Negotiators proposed transitional language: a student may be considered a “professional student” if enrolled before July 1, 2027, in a program that awarded a professional degree as of July 4, 2025, received Title IV funds in 2024–25, or is designated by the institution as professional — indicating ED is attempting to shield some current students from sudden loss of status [4]. This shows ED is balancing changing definitions with concerns raised by institutions about retroactive impacts [4].
6. Limits of the record and what is not found
Available sources do not describe any accreditor or external certification board issuing an order that reclassifies degrees as non‑professional; the action appears driven by ED rulemaking and internal committee consensus, not by accreditors [1] [2] [4]. Also, the public record in these results does not supply final regulatory text or the outcome of the promised Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [1].
7. Why this matters — loans, workforce, and institutional labeling
Reclassifying degrees out of the “professional” bucket would alter which programs gain access to larger federal loan caps under OBBBA and could change student borrowing limits and program attractiveness; ASPPH frames this as a potential threat to public‑health workforce development [1] [2]. ED’s allowance for institutional designation means colleges can attempt to preserve program status administratively, but that remedy shifts the burden to institutions to document and declare professional programs [4] [3].
8. Competing perspectives and likely next steps
ED negotiators present the change as a needed clarification of who qualifies as a “professional student” and a way to target higher loan caps; professional associations and some negotiators argue the proposal is too narrow and omits established professional programs, calling for CIP‑code additions and protections for students [2] [3] [1]. ED planned a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a 30‑day public comment period, so expect formal rule text and concentrated advocacy from affected fields before any final reclassification effect [1].
Limitations: this analysis uses the supplied reporting excerpts; available sources do not include final regulatory text, formal actions by accrediting agencies, or outcomes of the public comment period [1] [2] [4].