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 types of degree programs (e.g., counseling, social work, education) were reclassified as non-professional and why?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s recent negotiated-rulemaking proposal would sharply narrow which graduate programs count as “professional degrees,” removing many health‑and‑service fields — notably nursing, public health, social work, counseling, physician assistant (PA), occupational therapy, audiology and other advanced health professions — from that category and thereby limiting their access to higher federal loan limits (ED negotiators agreed to recognize 11 primary fields as professional) [1] [2] [3]. Organizations representing nursing, public health, and social work say the change will reduce loan eligibility for students in those fields and was driven by ED’s choice to tie the definition to a short list of CIP codes and named fields rather than to licensure or practice similarity [4] [5] [6].
1. What the reclassification actually does: shrinking the “professional” list
Under the Department of Education proposal developed in RISE (the Reimagining and Improving Student Education committee), the number of programs counted as professional would fall dramatically — from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 — by limiting the label to 11 named fields (medicine, pharmacy, dentistry, optometry, law, veterinary medicine, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, chiropractic, theology and clinical psychology) and some doctoral programs; programs that do not share a 4‑digit CIP code with those fields would be excluded even if they are similar in content or lead to licensure [2] [4] [7].
2. Which degree types are explicitly or widely reported as being reclassified
Reporting and stakeholder statements identify many allied‑health and service degrees as affected: nursing (including advanced nursing degrees), physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, audiology, public health degrees, social work, and counseling were cited across coverage and advocacy groups as losing professional‑degree status under the proposed definition [3] [5] [6] [8]. Newsweek and other summaries specifically name health care, counseling, and social work among those excluded [8] [2].
3. Why the department changed the definition: CIP codes, named fields, and loan‑limit rules
The department’s approach ties “professional degree” status to a narrow set of named fields and requires matching 4‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes; NASFAA explains programs will not qualify if they don’t share a CIP with one of the 11 listed fields even when they otherwise meet other professional criteria. That technical choice aims to create “clear and consistent” criteria but results in many clinically oriented degrees falling outside the category and losing access to the higher loan limits created by OBBBA/H.R.1 [4] [7] [1].
4. Consequences highlighted by professional groups and advocates
National associations including the American Nurses Association and the Council on Social Work Education warn that excluding these programs will limit students’ borrowing capacity and could impede recruitment into critical service professions, particularly in rural and underserved areas where advanced clinicians provide essential care [9] [6] [5]. Advocacy pieces argue the change undervalues those professions and threatens educational pipelines for nursing and public health [10] [5].
5. Departmental/some negotiated reasoning and an alternative framing
Proponents of tighter definitions — including some negotiators cited by reporting — argue the rule reduces incentives for programs to become “cash cows,” seeks parity across fields and prevents unreasonable debt relative to expected earnings; AAU and others frame the change as an implementation of H.R.1 loan‑limit rules rather than an attack on particular disciplines [7] [8]. NASFAA materials note the department intends clearer, administrable categories for legacy Parent PLUS and professional student limits [4].
6. Points of disagreement and policy tradeoffs
There is a clear split: ED negotiators emphasize administrability and alignment with OBBBA’s new loan architecture, while professional schools and associations emphasize workforce impacts and the mismatch between CIP‑based technical definitions and licensure/practice realities. The department’s CIP‑centered rule treats similar‑in‑practice programs differently based on coding and naming, a decision CSWE and ASPPH say creates unjustified distinctions by field length and label [4] [6] [5].
7. What reporting does not answer or is not in these sources
Available sources do not mention the full final regulatory text or whether Congress, the Education Secretary, or courts will alter the RISE committee’s consensus before any change becomes binding; they also do not provide detailed, program‑level lists from ED beyond the named 11 fields, nor full quantitative projections of how many students will lose eligibility beyond the cited program‑count reductions [7] [2].
8. Bottom line for students and policymakers
The proposal narrows “professional degree” status by relying on a short list of fields and CIP code matches, which advocacy groups say will exclude nursing, social work, public health, counseling and many allied‑health programs from higher loan limits and could worsen workforce shortages; ED and some negotiators frame the measure as a technical, administrable implementation of H.R.1 that reins in what they view as excessive borrowing incentives [4] [9] [7]. Decisions now hinge on whether stakeholders, agencies, or lawmakers alter the technical definition before rule‑making concludes [1].