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 programs, institutions, or fields were most affected by ED labeling degrees as 'non-professional' in 2025?
Executive summary
The Education Department’s 2025 RISE/OBBBA process proposed a narrow definition of “professional degree” that, according to multiple outlets, would exclude widely used health, education and social‑service programs — notably nursing, physician assistant, physical and occupational therapy, public health (MPH/DrPH), education, social work, audiology and speech‑language pathology — with potential loan caps falling from about $50,000 to roughly $20,500 for many graduate students (reporting summarized from Newsweek, USA Today, ASPPH and others) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Coverage emphasizes disagreement between the Department, which says past definitions are consistent, and professional groups warning the change will squeeze pipelines for critical professions [1] [3].
1. What the Department proposed — a narrow professional‑degree gate
Committee materials and reporting show the RISE committee’s draft for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would limit “professional” status to a small set of long, doctoral‑level or narrowly coded programs; materials and summaries say the outcome was to exclude many health and service degrees from the higher loan tier that professional students historically accessed [3] [4] [1]. The Department’s public stance — per Newsweek — is that the new language aligns with historical regulatory precedent, while critics call the practical impact a reclassification that cuts loan access [1].
2. Fields named most affected — health care and public health first
Coverage repeatedly highlights nursing as the most prominent and politically charged exclusion, with nursing groups saying graduate nursing students would lose higher borrowing limits and that omission threatens workforce capacity; reporting lists nursing programs (MSN, DNP, NP, CRNA, midwife) among those left off the “professional” list [1] [5] [4]. Public health degrees (MPH, DrPH) and clinical allied health professions — physician assistant, physical therapy, occupational therapy, audiology — are also named by professional associations and outlets as excluded or at risk [3] [6] [4].
3. Education, social work, and allied professions — broader consequences
Beyond health fields, coverage documents that education (all specialties), social work (BSW, MSW), counseling/therapy, speech‑language pathology and some allied administrative fields (health administration) were identified as being left out or under threat — raising concerns about K‑12, special‑education and social‑service pipelines if graduate funding tightens [4] [2] [3].
4. Business, IT, engineering, arts and architecture — included in some lists of affected programs
Several media and social posts circulated lists that add MBA/accounting, IT/cybersecurity, engineering, arts and architecture to the programs potentially reclassified; those lists were sometimes amplified online and in summaries of the committee’s narrow criteria but vary in specificity across reports [7] [4]. Some reporting ties these inclusions to the draft’s rules about CIP codes and degree length rather than explicit judgments about professional status [4].
5. What changes would mean for students and institutions
News outlets and professional groups warn that moving a program from the “professional” bucket would often lower the graduate loan cap — from about $50,000 for programs labeled professional to a lower graduate cap around $20,500 — and could eliminate Grad PLUS access, which critics say risks enrollment declines, faculty shortages and weaker workforce pipelines in affected fields [6] [2] [8]. Institutions that train clinicians, teachers and public‑service professionals say that could make advanced credentials less attainable and complicate hiring pipelines [3] [8].
6. Competing narratives: Department vs. professional bodies
The Department, via a spokesperson cited by Newsweek, called claims the list is new “fake news at its finest” and argued the definition aligns with longstanding regulation and consensus committee work [1]. In contrast, professional organizations (e.g., American Nurses Association, ASPPH) have publicly warned the draft excludes key degrees and urged the Department to broaden the definition to protect access and workforce strength [1] [3].
7. Process, timelines and limits of current reporting
Reporting notes the Department’s negotiated rulemaking and a forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, with public comment windows expected; the changes would take effect in future loan cycles (reporting points to July 2026 as an implementation target in some pieces) [3] [2] [9]. Available sources do not mention final, binding rule text or an enacted list — much of the coverage is based on committee materials, draft definitions, and reactions from affected groups [3] [1].
8. What to watch next — where policy fights will land
Expect industry petitions, formal public comments to the negotiated rulemaking, and lobbying from associations representing nursing, public health, education and allied professions; watch the Department’s Federal Register notices and the negotiated‑rulemaking schedule for December to see final language and loan‑cap mechanics [3] [10] [9]. If a final rule narrows “professional” as reported, Congress or courts could become arenas for challenge — but available sources do not yet report on legislative or litigation outcomes [3].
Limitations: This analysis relies on media and association reporting of RISE committee drafts and reactions; available sources do not publish a final, administrative rule that definitively lists every reclassified degree [1] [3].