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 reclassified in 2025 and why?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s 2025 proposal would sharply narrow which graduate programs count as “professional degrees,” cutting the list from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 and explicitly excluding many health, education, and social‑service fields such as advanced nursing (MSN, DNP), physician assistant, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, public health (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW, DSW), and many education master’s programs — a change that would lower borrower loan caps for students in those programs [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and advocacy groups say the committee drafting the rule agreed to recognize only about 11 primary programs plus certain doctorates as professional degrees, and that the change is tied to implementing H.R.1 / the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its loan caps [4] [1].
1. What specific degrees are being reclassified — the commonly cited lists
Multiple news outlets, professional groups and social posts circulating a departmental draft list identify a broad set of graduate programs that would be removed from the “professional degree” category: nursing programs (MSN, DNP, NP and related advanced credentials), physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, counseling and therapy degrees, public health degrees (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW, DSW), many education master’s degrees, and even some business and engineering master’s in some summaries [2] [5] [1] [3]. Newsweek, The Independent and local outlets have published similar lists as part of coverage of the proposal [3] [6] [7].
2. Why the reclassification is happening — link to policy and loan limits
The administration’s rulemaking is part of implementing student‑loan provisions in H.R.1 / the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; the RISE committee and Department of Education have proposed a narrower regulatory definition of “professional degree” to determine which graduate programs qualify for higher loan caps (for example, $50,000 per year or higher aggregate totals for programs designated “professional”), while other graduate students would face much lower caps [4] [1] [8]. Advocacy groups and universities say that limiting the number of programs considered “professional” is explicitly meant to restrict the set of programs eligible for expanded borrowing under the new law [4] [1].
3. Where this list came from — rulemaking vs. media/social reposts
Available reporting shows the reclassification reflects a departmental proposal and committee consensus drafts, not a finalized regulatory change; multiple articles stress these are proposed definitions and an NPRM (notice of proposed rulemaking) and public comment period were expected [9] [2]. Social reposts circulated comprehensive lists of affected degrees (including expanded lists that add business, engineering and arts), but some of those posts blend formal committee drafts with unofficial compilations — they do reflect worrying overlap with the department’s narrowed list [5] [1].
4. Who is objecting — professional groups and universities
National associations for nursing, public health schools, and research universities have publicly criticized the proposal, warning that excluding degrees like the MPH, MSW and advanced nursing would reduce access to higher federal loan limits and could harm workforce pipelines in critical sectors [9] [4] [10]. University deans and local reporting highlight concerns about increased student borrowing burdens and potential effects on recruitment for high‑cost programs [7] [10].
5. Competing perspectives and government rationale
The Department of Education and proponents argue the definition hews to a narrower, older regulatory framework and is intended to limit overly broad application of “professional” status that increases federal borrowing exposure; proponents frame it as fiscal and definitional tightening in line with H.R.1 [2] [1]. Critics counter that the narrowed list omits professions that require licensing and advanced study, and that the consequence is reduced loan access for fields the nation needs [6] [9].
6. Key limitations and what’s still unknown
Current reporting shows the changes are based on a proposal and committee consensus, not a completed final rule; precise final lists, implementing language, and the ultimate effect on loan limits and programs depend on forthcoming NPRM text and the public comment process [9] [2]. Available sources do not mention final regulatory text or whether Congress or courts will intervene before implementation (not found in current reporting).
7. What to watch next
Monitor the Department of Education’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the 30‑day public comment window the RISE committee signaled, as well as formal lists published in the NPRM; expect professional associations (nursing, public health, social work) and universities to submit comments and possibly litigate or lobby Congress if the final rule excludes key programs [9] [4].