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 as non-professional and by which institution or regulator?
Executive summary
The Department of Education’s negotiated-rulemaking process (RISE committee) produced a draft definition that sharply narrows which graduate programs qualify as “professional degrees,” cutting roughly from ~2,000 program labels to under 600 and singling out 11 broad fields as the primary professional areas; as a result, programs such as nursing, public health (MPH/DrPH), social work (MSW), physician assistant and several allied-health degrees are being treated as non‑professional under the proposal — a change described in statements from nursing and public‑health organizations and reporters [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. The rulemaking originator is the U.S. Department of Education via the RISE negotiated‑rulemaking committee implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) loan provisions [7] [8].
1. Who changed the classifications — and through what process
The reclassification originates with the U.S. Department of Education’s negotiated‑rulemaking (Reimagining and Improving Student Education, or RISE) committee, which reached consensus on draft regulatory language to define “professional degree” for purposes of implementing loan limits in OBBBA; NASFAA and AAU reporting tie the outcome to ED’s proposal and the RISE negotiations [7] [9] [8]. The Department’s draft reduces the set of programs eligible for higher federal loan limits and concentrates “professional” status in a tightened set of fields [7] [8].
2. Which specific degrees or program types are reported reclassified as non‑professional
Available reporting and stakeholder statements identify several programs that would lose professional status under the Department’s proposed definition: nursing (including advanced nursing pathways and nurse practitioners), public health degrees such as MPH and DrPH, social work (MSW), physician assistant programs, occupational therapy, audiology, and some clinical psychology programs — among other allied‑health and service professions called out by union and advocacy groups and in social posts [2] [3] [4] [6] [1] [10]. Threads and advocacy pieces list additional impacted titles [1] [10].
3. How the Department’s draft decides inclusion — the mechanics
ED’s draft definition ties “professional degree” eligibility to a narrow set of criteria: programs must map to one of about eleven designated fields (using 4‑digit CIP codes), typically require at least two years post‑baccalaureate work (or six years total postsecondary), include preparation for licensure, and meet ED’s specified professional‑practice thresholds [8] [11]. NASFAA and AEI summarize that programs without shared, matching CIP codes with ED’s listed fields would be excluded even if similar in rigor or licensure outcomes [8] [11].
4. Who is objecting — and why
Major professional organizations representing nurses (American Nurses Association, AACN), public‑health schools (ASPPH), and social‑work educators (CSWE) have publicly objected, saying exclusion will constrain student access to higher loan limits, worsen workforce shortages, and reflect misunderstanding of practice and licensure pathways for those fields [4] [5] [3] [6]. News outlets and social posts emphasize the potential scale: nursing enrollments are large and may be affected [2] [4].
5. Who supports the change — the policy rationale
Commentators and policy analysts (for example at AEI) argue the narrowed definition is a reasonable curb on high borrowing where most students already borrow within standard limits and that ED must target the higher loan caps to high‑cost licensed professions like medicine and dentistry; AEI notes many degrees (e.g., Ed.D., MSW) do not typically require the higher limits and thus can be excluded [11]. This reflects a competing viewpoint: fiscal targeting of loan capacity vs. broad protection for many service professions.
6. What the draft means for students and next steps
If finalized, the rule would reduce the number of programs eligible for higher OBBBA loan caps (AEI and negotiated‑rulemaking summaries say the caps apply only to the professional programs ED designates), potentially limiting borrowing for students in excluded programs and prompting public comment and advocacy during the anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking period [8] [3] [7]. ASPPH and other groups urge institutions and stakeholders to submit comments when the NPRM posts [3].
7. Limitations and gaps in current reporting
Available sources document the Department’s role, the RISE committee consensus, and lists of program types that stakeholders say would be excluded, but none of the provided items publish a complete, program‑by‑program list of the exact CIP codes or an authoritative master table of the “fewer than 600” retained programs; the full regulatory text and the formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) — which would show the finalized list and exact statutory/regulatory text — were not included in these sources [8] [7]. Therefore, precise, exhaustive identification of every reclassified degree is not found in current reporting [8] [1].
If you want, I can extract the eleven fields ED reportedly centers on from the negotiated‑rulemaking summaries and compile a likely list of commonly cited CIP codes and degrees that match those fields, or prepare suggested language you could submit during the NPRM comment period.