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 universities or accrediting bodies initiated the reclassification of degrees as non-professional?
Executive summary
The change to what counts as a “professional degree” originated with a Department of Education-led process implementing provisions of H.R.1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act), in which a DOE-convened committee narrowed the federal list of professional programs — cutting the number of listed programs dramatically and removing fields like nursing, public health and others from the professional-degree category for loan purposes [1] [2]. Reporting and advocacy groups say the draft rules would reduce the “professional” list from roughly 2,000 programs to fewer than 600 and thus limit higher federal loan limits to fewer fields [2] [3].
1. Who started the reclassification: the Education Department, not individual universities
The initiative described across reporting was launched by the U.S. Department of Education as part of rulemaking to implement student-loan provisions of H.R.1; a Department‑convened committee negotiated draft regulations and reached consensus to narrow which programs qualify as “professional” for loan caps [1] [3]. Multiple outlets summarize that this is an administrative redefinition rather than a decision taken by accrediting bodies or individual universities [3] [1].
2. What bodies actually did the work: a DOE committee and proposed rulemaking
Sources point to a DOE “RISE” (Reimagining and Improving Student Education) committee that reached preliminary consensus on the proposed definition and that the Department will issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, opening a public-comment period — the conventional administrative pathway for federal reclassifications [4] [1]. Coverage and advocacy groups treat the DOE committee’s draft as the proximate actor producing the narrower list [1] [4].
3. Which accrediting bodies or universities are named — available sources do not mention any
Available sources do not mention universities or independent accrediting bodies as the initiators. Reporting and trade groups frame this as a federal rulemaking by the Department of Education; news pieces and higher‑education associations describe the move as DOE-driven rather than an action by regional accreditors or specific institutions [1] [3] [5].
4. The substance of the reclassification: major health and education programs affected
Journalistic and professional outlets list multiple graduate programs being left off the DOE’s professional-degree list for Title IV loan purposes — including nursing (MSN, DNP), public health (MPH, DrPH), social work (MSW, DSW), physician assistant, occupational therapy, physical therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology and counseling/therapy degrees — while medicine, dentistry, law and pharmacy would retain professional status under the draft [6] [3] [5].
5. Scale and consequences emphasized by reporting and advocacy groups
Observers report the list reduction as large — from roughly 2,000 programs to fewer than 600 — and say the practical effect ties into loan caps: students in “professional” programs would face higher allowable borrowing (e.g., up to $50,000 per year in some accounts) while other graduate students face lower annual caps (e.g., $20,500), potentially constraining access and workforce pipelines in critical fields [2] [5] [1].
6. Who is pushing back: professional associations and universities
Professional organizations and higher‑education groups have publicly criticized the draft. The Association of American Universities warned the proposal threatens access and cited broader concerns about workforce impacts; the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health explicitly flagged that excluding MPH and DrPH programs would impair public‑health workforce development and said it would advocate during the rulemaking comment period [1] [4].
7. Disagreement and uncertainty in coverage: proposal vs. final rule
Fact‑checking coverage stresses that, as of reporting, this was a proposed redefinition under DOE rulemaking, not a completed reclassification: some pieces note the draft had not yet been finalized and that the Department argued it was reasserting an older regulatory definition though applying it more narrowly [6]. That procedural status matters: a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and public comments are steps before any final change [6] [4].
8. What to watch next: rulemaking milestones and stakeholder responses
Monitor the Department of Education’s official Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for exact text and the 30‑day (or otherwise specified) public‑comment window, along with formal comments from nursing, public‑health, social‑work, legal and educational groups; those filings and any subsequent revisions will clarify whether the draft’s narrowed list becomes final [4] [1].
Limitations: reporting compiled here comes from news outlets, association statements and advocacy summaries; none of the provided sources identify universities or accrediting bodies as the initiators, and official DOE rule text (the final published NPRM) is not included among the sources provided for this query [3] [1] [4].