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 governing body ordered the reclassification of specific professional degrees?
Executive summary
The reclassification was driven by the U.S. Department of Education through work by its Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) committee as it drafted a new, narrower definition of “professional degree” under changes tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and H.R.1; the committee and Department proposals would cut the number of programs treated as professional degrees from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600 and explicitly exclude many health and social‑service programs, including advanced nursing, public health, and physician assistant programs [1] [2] [3]. News outlets, professional groups, and higher‑education associations report the change would reduce eligibility for higher graduate loan limits and has prompted widespread objections from nursing and public‑health organizations [4] [5] [2].
1. Who ordered the reclassification — a government committee with the Department’s stamp
The action originates with the U.S. Department of Education: the Department convened a RISE committee that worked on draft regulations to implement student‑loan provisions in H.R.1 and reached a consensus on a new, narrower definition of “professional degree programs,” which the Department is expected to advance through rulemaking [1] [2] [6]. Reporting and industry groups describe this as the Education Department’s proposal rather than a final statutory change — the committee produced the draft definition and the Department will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that could open public comment [2] [3].
2. What exactly changed in definition and scale
According to Association of American Universities coverage of the Department‑convened work, the proposed definition dramatically reduces the roster of degrees classed as “professional” — from roughly 2,000 programs to fewer than 600 — and limits which fields qualify, recognizing only a small set of primary programs plus some doctoral degrees [1]. The Department’s interpretation narrows prior regulatory practice and excludes several health‑adjacent and social‑service degrees that previously were treated as professional for loan‑eligibility purposes [1] [3].
3. Which programs were named for exclusion — health, education, and social services hit hardest
Multiple reports and advocacy groups list advanced nursing (MSN, DNP, NP, CRNA), physician assistant programs, occupational and physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, social work, public health (MPH, DrPH), many education specialties, and counseling among programs that would lose “professional” status under the proposal [3] [5] [7]. Professional organizations — for example, nursing and public‑health associations — have publicly expressed alarm that those programs were excluded in the RISE committee’s consensus and the Department’s proposal [4] [2].
4. The concrete impact claimed: loan limits and access
Several outlets and associations tie the redefinition to immediate financial effects: under the OBBBA/H.R.1 framework the “professional” designation is tied to higher graduate loan limits, and narrowing that definition would cut the number of students eligible for those larger limits (for example, caps shifting from $200,000 for some professional students to lower graduate limits under the new rules), which groups warn will make expensive graduate programs less accessible [5] [4] [1]. NASFAA and others documented public comments opposing the Department’s proposal on precisely these financial‑access grounds [8] [6].
5. Conflicting reporting and the state of rulemaking — proposal vs. final rule
Fact‑checking and timeline pieces emphasize the distinction between a Department proposal and a completed reclassification: Snopes reported that while the Department said it would no longer classify many credentials as professional degrees, that change was part of a proposal and had not been finalized as of their write‑up [3]. Other outlets reported the Department “has” reclassified nursing in headlines, reflecting how quickly reporting and advocacy messaging moved; but the procedural record indicates the RISE committee’s consensus and Department proposal are the operative steps [3] [1].
6. Competing perspectives and hidden motives
Supporters of the change, as reflected in the Department’s effort to implement H.R.1 provisions, frame it as clarifying an older 1965 regulatory definition and tightening eligibility to target loan resources [3] [1]. Opponents — nursing, public‑health, and higher‑education groups — say the narrower interpretation is arbitrary, risks workforce shortages in critical fields, and disproportionately harms programs dominated by women or serving underserved communities [4] [2] [5]. Advocacy posts on social platforms amplify urgency and list affected programs, while institutional actors urge public comment during the rulemaking window [7] [8].
7. What reporting does not settle
Available sources do not mention whether a final Department of Education rule had been issued and enacted into practice as of the cited pieces; many articles and fact checks describe an agency proposal and committee consensus but stop short of a completed regulatory change [3] [1] [2]. Also, sources do not provide long‑term empirical modeling of how many students would be unable to enroll because of the loan changes — they document intent, lists of excluded programs, and predicted impacts from advocacy groups [4] [1].
Bottom line: The U.S. Department of Education — via its RISE committee and proposed rulemaking tied to OBBBA/H.R.1 implementation — is the governing body responsible for narrowing which degrees count as “professional,” and that proposal explicitly targets many advanced health, education, and social‑service programs for exclusion, prompting broad pushback and ongoing rulemaking procedures [1] [2] [3].