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 specific degrees were affected by changes in professional degree classification?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s recent negotiated rulemaking drastically narrows which post‑baccalaureate programs it will treat as “professional,” moving from an open, example‑based list to a specific set of about 11 fields (plus closely related programs) — a change that, according to university associations and professional groups, will remove professional classification (and higher loan caps) for many advanced health and social‑service degrees such as some nursing, public health, social work, PA, OT, and others [1] [2] [3]. The new language recognizes roughly 11 primary areas (medicine, dentistry, law, etc., plus clinical psychology and closely related CIP codes) while excluding many programs that previously fell under a broader reading of “professional” [4] [5].
1. What the department actually proposed: a tightened, enumerated “professional” list
Negotiators on ED’s RISE committee agreed on draft regulations that sharply limit the number of degree programs that qualify as “professional,” explicitly enumerating roughly 11 primary fields (the traditional examples such as medicine, law, dentistry, plus clinical psychology) and allowing programs in the same four‑digit CIP codes to qualify — a narrower approach than the prior, non‑exhaustive example list in the Higher Education Act [1] [4] [5].
2. Which degrees groups are raising alarms
Major professional associations representing nursing, public health, social work, and related professions say the proposed definition would exclude their advanced degrees from professional status and thus from higher federal loan caps; the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH), the American Nurses Association (ANA), and the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) have all publicly warned the change would cut loan access for MPH/DrPH, advanced nursing degrees, and social work programs [2] [6] [3].
3. Examples frequently cited as affected: health and allied‑health programs
Commenters and social posts point to physician assistants, advanced practice nursing, occupational therapy, audiology, clinical psychologists, and others as potentially losing professional classification under the new list; professional groups and higher‑education advocates have specifically named PA, PT, OT, AuD, advanced nursing, and some public health and social work degrees as at risk [7] [8] [9].
4. How the change translates to loan access and dollar amounts
Under the implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), students in programs classified as professional would have higher annual and aggregate loan limits ($50,000 annual / $200,000 aggregate) compared with non‑professional graduate programs ($20,500 annual / $100,000 aggregate); narrowing the professional list therefore could materially reduce borrowing capacity for students in excluded programs [4].
5. Disagreement about scope and which programs still qualify
ED’s final language keeps clinical psychology as a qualified area and extends qualification to programs within the same four‑digit CIP codes as the enumerated fields, which may preserve some psychology variants, while negotiators and groups are still debating whether many allied health professions will fit within those CIP‑based crosswalks — NASFAA and other trade groups showed engagement and differing views during the sessions about how to treat specific health occupations [4] [10] [9].
6. Institutional and sector pushback: why universities and associations object
Leading research universities (AAU), nursing and public‑health bodies warn the narrower definition will force program restructuring, raise costs for students, and could undermine workforce pipelines in underserved areas; AACN, ANA, ASPPH, CSWE and other organizations are urging ED to revise the rule or for Congress to amend OBBBA to explicitly include additional programs [1] [2] [6] [3].
7. What remains unclear or not covered in current reporting
Available sources do not list the full set of the roughly 11 enumerated fields by name beyond examples like medicine, law, dentistry and inclusion of clinical psychology, nor do they provide a complete roster of every specific CIP code ED will treat as “professional” — the detailed list of which exact degrees fall in or out is not found in the current reporting you provided [4] [5] [1].
8. How stakeholders are likely to respond and next steps
ED is expected to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and open a public comment period; professional associations say they will submit formal comments and press for clarifications to preserve loan access for affected programs, and universities may lobby Congress for statutory fixes if rules are finalized as proposed [2] [3] [1].
Bottom line: the negotiated rulemaking narrowed the universe of “professional” programs to a short, enumerated set plus related CIP‑code matches, and several health‑ and social‑service degree programs and their associations say that change would strip those programs of professional designation and higher loan limits — but the precise, complete list of every excluded or included degree and CIP code is not available in the provided reporting [1] [2] [4].