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 congressional committee proposed reclassifying certain degrees from 'professional' status and why?
Executive summary
The change came from the U.S. Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking work by the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee, not directly from a congressional standing committee; that committee reached preliminary consensus to narrow the federal definition of “professional degree programs,” which would remove many health and service degrees (nursing, social work, audiology, speech‑language pathology and others) from the professional category and thus affect higher loan limits (committee consensus noted by ED and reporting) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and stakeholder statements disagree about scope and intent: the Department’s press secretary framed the change as following historical precedent and committee consensus [3], while professional organizations warn it will reduce graduate loan access and harm fields dominated by women [3] [4] [5].
1. Who proposed the reclassification — a committee inside the Education Department, not a congressional committee
The proposal emerged from the Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking process, specifically the RISE (Reimagining and Improving Student Education) Committee convened to produce regulatory text implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA); the Department published schedules and documents for the negotiated rulemaking and says the committee reached consensus on proposals including a narrower professional‑degree definition [1] [2]. Congressional committee schedules list hearings and related activity but the carried proposal stems from ED’s negotiated rulemaking rather than a House or Senate education committee drafting the rule itself [6] [1].
2. What the committee proposed and degrees affected
Negotiated‑rulemaking participants reportedly agreed on a narrower list of “professional degree” programs; initial ED examples and the committee’s consensus would exclude or limit many health‑ and service‑oriented graduate programs—nursing, physician assistant, physical therapy, social work, audiology, speech‑language pathology, educators, architects and accountants were cited in coverage and stakeholder notices as being excluded or at risk of exclusion from the professional category [3] [5] [4] [7].
3. Why the change matters — loan limits and student impact
Under the department’s framing, redefining “professional degree” alters eligibility for higher federal graduate loan limits and related program rules: multiple outlets and stakeholders note graduate nursing and allied health students could lose access to previously higher loan caps and loan‑forgiveness pathways if their degrees are no longer classed as professional [4] [3] [7]. UNC Research and nursing advocacy coverage specifically tie the negotiation to implementation of loan caps set by the statute the committee is implementing [7] [4].
4. Department rationale and consensus claim
The Education Department’s press secretary told Newsweek the Department “has had a consistent definition” historically and that the committee — which included higher‑education institutions and other stakeholders — “agreed on the definition” being proposed in the rulemaking [3]. ED’s negotiated‑rulemaking materials describe meetings and indicate consensus on multiple regulatory provisions, which ED summarized as arriving at agreement on what degrees count as professional [1] [7].
5. Pushback from professional organizations and alternative viewpoints
Professional groups representing nursing, audiology, speech‑language pathology and others have pushed back, saying the narrower definition was negotiated without adequately recognizing how those programs are aligned with existing professional examples and warning of negative workforce consequences; ASHA (audiology/speech‑language) and nursing groups have mobilized advocacy and prepared formal comments arguing the degrees should be included to preserve higher loan limits [5] [4]. These organizations frame the change as harmful to fields dominated by women and to public‑health workforce needs [3] [4].
6. What’s still unclear or not found in reporting
Available sources do not provide the exact final regulatory text or the precise membership roll call of the RISE Committee’s consensus votes, nor do they include a full list of every program included or excluded in the agreement beyond the examples cited by advocates and reporting [1] [7]. Legislative documents and committee schedules on Congress.gov list hearings but do not themselves claim a congressional committee authored this reclassification; that attribution appears to be a mischaracterization in some public discussion [6] [1].
7. Why this matters politically and why narratives diverge
The Department frames the change as technical, consensus‑based alignment with historical precedent coming out of a negotiated rulemaking [3] [1]. Critics present a political framing: they say the rule undermines graduate loan access for care‑focused fields and could worsen workforce shortages, and emphasize demographic and gendered impacts [4] [3]. Readers should note the difference in sources: ED’s public statements about procedural consensus [3] [1] versus advocacy groups’ claims about consequences and exclusions [5] [4] [7].
If you want, I can extract the specific degrees named across the reporting, list ED’s negotiated‑rulemaking meeting dates and participants as published, or draft sample wording for a public comment opposing or supporting the proposed definition based on these sources [1] [5] [4].