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 did the U.S. Department of Education classify as non-professional in 2025?
Executive summary
The available reporting shows the U.S. Department of Education and its RISE negotiated-rulemaking committee sharply narrowed which graduate programs it will call “professional” for higher federal loan limits in 2025, recognizing a list centered on roughly 11 primary professions (medicine, law, dentistry, etc.) and some doctoral programs while excluding many health and social‑service master’s and advanced practice degrees (for example, public health, many nursing advanced-practice degrees, social work concerns were raised) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Sources disagree about the exact final list and whether the department or negotiators drove the narrower definition; the Department’s draft emphasizes doctoral-level programs, six years of instruction, and 4‑digit CIP code alignment with 11 professions [2] [5].
1. What the Department actually proposed — a tightened, technical definition
The Department’s proposal presented in RISE ties “professional degree” status to narrow technical criteria: typically doctoral level (with limited exceptions), at least six years of instruction including post‑baccalaureate study, evidence the program readies students for beginning practice in a specific profession, and inclusion in the same four‑digit CIP code as one of roughly 11 named professions [2] [5]. Inside Higher Ed summarizes those cutoffs and notes the department’s list was smaller than some negotiators wanted [2].
2. Which degrees got explicit attention — an 11‑profession core
Reporting and trade groups say the negotiated draft recognized only about 11 primary professions (medical, law, dentistry, theology/divinity exceptions noted in other contexts) and allowed some related doctoral programs to qualify via shared CIP codes [1] [2] [6]. New America’s explainer ties the policy shift to OBBBA’s choice to freeze an earlier regulatory definition as of July 4, 2025, which changes who will be eligible for the larger “professional” loan caps [7].
3. Degrees and programs that stakeholders say were excluded or at risk
University associations, public‑health schools, nursing advocates, and social‑work educators report the Department’s narrowing would exclude many programs traditionally viewed as professional: public health (MPH/DrPH), advanced nursing degrees/ nurse practitioners, physician associates/physician assistants, occupational therapy, clinical psychology, and potentially social work — all of which groups warn could lose access to the higher professional loan caps [3] [8] [9] [4]. Newsweek and social‑sector groups specifically note nursing programs were treated as non‑professional under the administration’s approach [9].
4. Disagreement among negotiators and the Department’s influence
Multiple accounts show internal disagreement: some negotiators pushed for a broader, more inclusive test (e.g., criteria focused on skills and practice readiness rather than degree level and credit hours), while the Department pressed a more restrictive package and warned it could revert concessions if no consensus emerged [2] [6]. Politically and procedurally, those dynamics mean that whether a program is ultimately counted depends on rulemaking outcomes and possible legal challenges [6] [10].
5. Practical consequence emphasized — loan caps and financial access
New loan limits under OBBBA differentiate “professional” programs (higher annual and aggregate caps) from other graduate programs; the reclassification therefore has direct borrowing and enrollment consequences: students in programs excluded from the professional list could face lower annual and lifetime federal graduate loan limits beginning with the new rules and implementation dates cited by analysts [7] [6]. Observers warn this could push students toward private loans or deter enrollment in costly clinical or advanced practice programs [6].
6. What reporting does not say or is unsettled
Available sources do not publish a single, definitive itemized list of every program labeled “non‑professional” by the Department in 2025; instead reporting describes the technical criteria and highlights many examples of excluded fields raised by professional associations and media [2] [3] [9]. Specific inclusion or exclusion of every specialty (for example exact CIP‑coded programs) is not enumerated in the current items [5] [1].
7. How to track final outcome and contested points
Follow the Department of Education’s final rule text and the negotiated‑rulemaking record for the precise list and any exceptions [5] [2]. Expect legal and congressional pushback given the stakes: New America and others flag litigation risks and ongoing political debate over the Department’s authority and the scope of OBBBA’s definitions [7] [10].
Bottom line: reporting in late 2025 documents a deliberate narrowing to roughly 11 core professions and doctoral programs via CIP‑code and time‑in‑program tests, and multiple high‑need fields—public health, many advanced nursing and social‑service master’s—are described by advocates as effectively excluded, but sources do not provide a comprehensive published line‑by‑line list of every degree categorized as “non‑professional” [2] [3] [9] [4].