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.
Why were nurse practitioners excluded from the professional degrees list?
Executive summary
The U.S. Department of Education’s recent redefinition of what counts as a “professional degree” explicitly omits nursing and related graduate programs — including nurse practitioner, physician assistant, physical therapy and audiology programs — shifting them into a lower federal loan category and exposing students to tighter borrowing caps (news coverage cites the omission and impacts) [1] [2]. Nursing organizations including the American Nurses Association warn this will reduce access to graduate funding and could worsen workforce shortages; the Department says it is aligning with historical regulatory language and consensus-based definitions [3] [4].
1. What change occurred and who it affects
The Department of Education’s new definition of “professional degree” removes several health professions from the higher “professional” loan category; reporting lists nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical therapists and audiologists among programs now excluded [5] [6]. Media outlets and nursing-industry outlets explain the practical consequence: students in those programs will face lower federal borrowing limits (the new law or rule replaces previous higher ceilings for many professional programs) [6] [7].
2. The Department’s stated rationale
The Department points to the longstanding regulatory definition dating to 1965 and to a “consensus-based” interpretation of which fields historically fit the professional-degree label; Newsweek cites the Department’s press secretary saying the change aligns with historical precedent and the regulation’s examples [1] [4]. NASFAA and Department discussions also show officials aimed to narrow eligibility by explicit CIP (Classification of Instructional Programs) codes and other technical criteria to determine program inclusion [8].
3. Nursing groups’ objections and the practical stakes
The American Nurses Association and other nursing organizations argue excluding nursing jeopardizes efforts to expand the workforce and access to care, especially in rural and underserved areas, because advanced practice nurses rely on graduate education that often used federal Grad PLUS or higher loan limits to finance training [3] [7]. Reporting warns hundreds of thousands of nursing students could be affected and that lifetime borrowing ceilings will be lower for students classed as “graduate” rather than “professional” [1] [6].
4. Why nursing’s status is contested — legal and technical background
The regulatory text from 1965 lists professions like medicine, law and dentistry as examples but says the list is “not limited to” those items; some outlets note nursing was not explicitly listed and that ambiguity has allowed different interpretations over time [1] [5]. The Department’s current move appears driven by a more literal application of listed codes and categories (4‑digit CIP codes and similar criteria), which excludes certain programs that otherwise meet broader definitions, as discussed in NASFAA meeting notes [8].
5. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Advocates for the Department’s change frame it as technical cleanup of legacy rules and a return to historical definitions; critics — nursing associations, some lawmakers and industry outlets — see the timing and the fiscal impacts as political and as part of broader loan‑program cuts [4] [9]. Industry reporting and nursing statements emphasize patient-care consequences, while the Department emphasizes regulatory consistency; each side has an institutional stake — professional groups want funding protection for their fields, the Department and supporters prioritize definitional clarity and budgetary limits [3] [4].
6. Short-term effects and likely next steps
News reports indicate immediate practical effects: affected students will face lower borrowing caps and limits on Grad PLUS-like access, which could change enrollment decisions for graduate nursing and allied‑health programs [7] [6]. The ANA has called for engagement and revision of the definition; NASFAA comments show stakeholder discussions are ongoing, suggesting possible administrative clarifications or legislative pushback may follow [3] [8].
7. What reporting does not resolve
Available sources do not mention detailed Departmental cost‑benefit analyses quantifying projected declines in nurse supply or precise numbers of students who will be denied specific loans under the new rule; likewise, they do not provide the full regulatory text or the exact CIP codes used for exclusions in a single, published government document within these articles (not found in current reporting). Several outlets summarize impacts and quotes but do not publish the complete legal language in-line with their coverage [1] [8].
8. Bottom line for readers
This is a technical but consequential policy change: it reclassifies nursing and related graduate programs out of the “professional degree” category, tightening federal loan access and prompting strong objections from nursing organizations worried about workforce effects — while the Department frames the move as consistent with historical regulatory interpretation and technical classification [3] [4]. Expect continued debate, stakeholder lobbying, and possible clarifications as nursing groups press the Department to reinstate or explicitly include nursing in the professional-degree definition [3] [8].