Which organizations or accrediting bodies announced the professional degree classification changes?

1. Who announced or responded: professional and discipline associations raised alarms

Nursing and public‑health organizations publicly objected: the American Nurses Association issued a statement expressing concern that nursing would be excluded from the “professional degree” classification under the Department of Education’s forthcoming rules ^[4], and ASPPH warned that excluding the MPH and DrPH “sends an alarming signal” and could restrict student access to higher federal loan limits ^[2]. Media and advocacy coverage also cites statements from the American Association of Colleges of Nursing criticizing the proposed exclusion of nursing ^[5].

2. Higher-education groups framed the change as a broader regulatory shift

The Association of American Universities described the outcome of the RISE committee as a decision that “will limit the number of degree programs that can be considered as ‘professional,’” noting the committee agreed to recognize only 11 primary programs plus some doctoral programs as professional degree programs—an action that university leaders say will curtail eligibility for higher $200,000 loan limits ^[1]. NASFAA reported on the negotiated-rulemaking discussions and how the Department and RISE committee debated definitions tied to licensure, certification, and program codes ^[6].

3. Social work and allied-health educators publicly objected

The Council on Social Work Education said the Education Department’s initial framework would define a professional degree by factors such as preparation for beginning practice, a 4-digit CIP code, and pathways to licensure, and it warned the proposed definition “limits access to social work education,” citing its own advocacy and submission of comments to ED ^[3]. Similar objections appear in other discipline-focused statements cited above arguing that important healthcare and service professions could be excluded under the new language ^{[2] [4]}.

4. Media outlets and analyst groups reported the implementation and impact

Newsweek and New America summarized the Department’s approach and effects: Newsweek reported the Department changed which programs count toward the higher aggregate loan limit and noted disagreement in coverage about whether the Department’s approach aligned with historical precedent ^[7]. New America outlined the final language’s list of included fields (about 11 plus clinical psychology) and the resulting loan-limit regime—professional-degree programs would retain higher annual and aggregate limits while most graduate students would face lower caps under OBBBA implementation ^[8].

5. What the Department of Education and the RISE committee role in announcements was

Available reporting attributes the definition change to the Department’s RISE negotiated-rulemaking process: the committee reached a consensus draft that narrowed which programs qualify as professional degrees as part of implementing student‑loan provisions of H.R.1 / OBBBA; this is the proximate administrative action prompting the statements from associations and universities ^{[1] [6] [2]}. Direct Department of Education press releases are referenced in media coverage disputing some claims, but those Department statements are summarized rather than fully reproduced in the provided sources ^[7].

6. Competing perspectives and stakes: workforce vs. fiscal limits

Discipline associations emphasize workforce and access harms—arguing that excluding nursing, public health, social work, PA, and allied-health programs would make advanced education less attainable and weaken pipelines ^{[2] [4] [3]}. Higher-education and policy analysts stress the regulatory and fiscal rationale: the Department and some commenters say the proposed definition aligns the loan‑eligibility taxonomy with historical regulation and CIP‑code structure while limiting the number of programs eligible for more generous loan caps to constrain borrowing and program classification ^{[7] [8] [1]}.

7. Limitations, next steps, and what reporting does not say

Available sources document the RISE committee consensus and multiple organizations’ public statements, but they do not provide the Department’s complete proposed regulatory text in these excerpts, the full list of the 11 recognized program fields, nor exhaustive lists of every organization that issued a statement—so some actors or technical details may be omitted from this set of reporting ^{[1] [8] [2]}. The Department was expected to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking opening a 30‑day comment period, which advocacy groups cited as their next opportunity to contest the change ^[2].