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 academic degrees are officially classified as professional degrees in the U.S.?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s recent rulemaking effort and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act implementation have prompted a new, narrower administrative definition of which academic programs count as “professional degrees,” with several fields — notably nursing, public health, audiology, speech‑language pathology, social work, many education degrees, and several allied health and therapy programs — described in news coverage and stakeholder statements as being excluded from that category [1] [2] [3]. Exact lists and the legal basis point back to a proposed interpretation of the federal regulatory definition from 1965 (34 CFR 668.2) and to committee deliberations within the department’s RISE/negotiated rulemaking process [1] [4] [5].
1. What “professional degree” traditionally meant — and what the department cites
Historically, federal regulations have long used a definition of “professional degree” in 34 C.F.R. 668.2 that names several professions but says the list is not exhaustive; the Department of Education is now interpreting that language more narrowly in its proposed regulations to implement loan limits under OBBBA, citing the same regulatory text from 1965 as precedent [1] [6]. Stakeholders and reporting note the department’s stated intent is to limit the higher lifetime loan cap to students in programs that match the department’s narrowed examples [3] [5].
2. Which fields news outlets and associations say are being re‑classified
Multiple outlets and professional associations report that the department’s proposal excludes many programs previously treated by some as “professional.” Reported examples of programs the department would not classify as professional include nursing (MSN, DNP and some entry‑level nursing programs), social work (MSW, DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH), audiology, speech‑language pathology, physician assistant, occupational therapy, physical therapy, counseling/therapy degrees, and many education degrees including teaching master’s programs [1] [2] [3] [7].
3. Why the classification matters — the financial mechanics
Classification determines which students are eligible for the higher “professional degree” loan limits under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Coverage explains that only students in programs the department labels “professional” would be eligible for the higher lifetime borrowing limits (reported examples: $200,000 professional vs $100,000 graduate cap in coverage), and that removing programs from that list could restrict access to higher federal loan amounts and affect financing for graduate study [3] [7].
4. Pushback from professional groups and the concerns they raise
Professional organizations have publicly objected. The Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health warned that excluding MPH and DrPH programs “sends an alarming signal” and could undermine public health workforce preparation [4]. The American Speech‑Language‑Hearing Association mobilized advocacy over audiology and speech‑language pathology being omitted and tied the issue to student loan access [3]. Nursing groups voiced concern the change would limit graduate nursing education and worsen workforce shortages [6] [8].
5. The department’s defense and contested narratives
The Department of Education has defended its approach by saying it is using the long‑standing regulatory definition and that its “consensus‑based” language aligns with historical precedent; Newsweek reports the department called some public claims “fake news” and emphasized continuity with prior definitions [6] [1]. That defense clashes with professional groups’ and some media accounts’ reading that the practical effect is narrower eligibility than many institutions and associations had assumed [4] [2].
6. How definitive is the “official” list right now?
Available reporting shows the department proposed definitions during negotiated rulemaking and RISE committee sessions, and media outlets have published lists of programs described as excluded — but the regulatory process is ongoing and stakeholders are continuing to seek explicit inclusions [5] [4]. In other words, reporting documents a proposal and reactions, not a static final universal catalog permanently etched in law; the department’s proposal and its cited 1965 regulation are central [5] [1].
7. What to watch next — practical implications and next moves
Expect continued advocacy and possible insertion of specific Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes into the rule, as commenters at negotiated rulemaking urged inclusion of codes for physician assistant, nurse practitioner and other professions [5]. Congress and organizations like ASPPH, ASHA, nursing associations and higher‑education groups are publishing comments and mobilizing Hill meetings; final regulatory text or subsequent guidance will determine definitive, legally binding lists and therefore who gets the higher loan limits [4] [3] [5].
Limitations: this summary relies only on the cited coverage and association statements; available sources do not provide a single definitive, finalized statutory list of “professional degrees” beyond the department’s proposed interpretation and press reporting [1] [5].