How would regulatory agencies or advisory opinions determine whether a given profession falls outside the OBBBA’s definition?

1. How agencies are approaching the definition: rulemaking and negotiated consensus

The U.S. Department of Education has used negotiated rulemaking (the RISE committee) to develop a working definition of “professional degree programs,” seeking clear criteria to decide which graduate programs get higher loan caps under OBBBA ^[1]. That process produced a framework that treats “professional student” status as tied to program characteristics — notably duration, skill level, and pathways to practice — rather than just a program title or marketing ^[1]. The negotiated approach signals policymakers want administrable, repeatable rules rather than ad hoc judgments ^[1].

2. The concrete criteria regulators are using

Under the RISE committee’s framework cited by the Council on Social Work Education, a professional degree typically must require “completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice,” demonstrate “a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor’s degree,” run at least two years post‑baccalaureate (or six years of postsecondary education overall), and include a pathway to licensure; the Department is also using 4‑digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes as one input ^{[1] [2]}. Regulators can therefore test programs against measurable elements — length, curricular content tied to practice, licensure alignment, and CIP classification — rather than submit to program names or lobbying alone ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Why CIP codes and licensure paths matter in practice

Several advocacy groups — including CSWE and associations of health professions — urged ED to use CIP codes (especially Health Professions CIP code 51) as a guide, arguing CIP alignment maps to occupations historically treated as professional and critical to public health workforce pipelines ^[1]. Using CIP codes gives regulators an objective taxonomy to narrow decisions, while licensure pathways give a functional test: does the degree prepare students for legally recognized, entry‑level practice? This dual approach helps agencies justify inclusion or exclusion and defend decisions during rulemaking ^[1].

4. The financial and workforce implications driving strictness

Agency determinations aren’t bureaucratic hair‑splitting — they affect loan access and hence enrollment, program finances, and workforce supply. Under OBBBA, students in certified “professional degree” programs may be eligible for far larger borrowing limits (reported as up to $50,000 per year / $200,000 aggregate), which matters most for costly fields like medicine and some health professions ^[2]. Groups representing public health and social work warn that excluding degrees such as MPH, DrPH, and MSW from the professional category could restrict student financing and weaken essential pipelines ^{[3] [1]}.

5. Points of contention and alternative viewpoints

Not all stakeholders agree on where lines should fall. The Department’s initial framework has prompted pushback: public health schools say the proposal excludes core public health degrees despite long precedent treating them as professional credentials ^[3]. CSWE notes ED’s intent to create “clear and consistent criteria,” yet expresses concern that the specific proposal could limit access to federal financing for social work and related fields ^[1]. Conversely, some commentators applaud the committee for striking a balance that ties professional status to measurable preparation and duration, which they argue prevents programs from “masquerading” as professional simply to access more borrowing ^[2].

6. How an advisory opinion or agency determination would actually work

Available sources describe a process rooted in negotiated rulemaking and subsequent agency guidance: ED sets criteria via negotiated rules or proposed regulations, then applies those standards to program characteristics (CIP code, duration, licensure path, curriculum) to issue determinations or guidance that institutions and lenders follow ^{[1] [2]}. If programs or associations disagree, they can respond during notice‑and‑comment periods, submit data showing alignment with the criteria, or seek administrative review — though specific procedural remedies are not detailed in the provided reporting ^[1]. Available sources do not mention the precise appeals or enforcement mechanics beyond rulemaking and public comment ^[1].

7. What to watch next

Monitor the Department of Education’s final negotiated rule language and any formal guidance tying OBBBA loan‑eligibility to CIP codes, program length, and licensure pathways; advocacy letters from professional associations (public health, social work) indicate legal and political pressure to broaden the definition where workforce needs are invoked ^{[3] [1]}. Also watch analyses that quantify how many students and programs would be affected by inclusion or exclusion, since financial thresholds under OBBBA are already reported and central to the debate ^[2].