The Department of Education and Negotiators Agree: A Narrow Definition of Professional Programs Supports Responsible Borrowing

The Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee recently concluded its negotiated rulemaking session, reaching consensus on a series of student loan regulations. This group had the tall task of developing the details of the student loan provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), several of which are slated to take effect on July 1, 2026.

A key area for negotiation—and one that generated considerable back-and-forth between the Department and negotiators—was determining which graduate programs will qualify for higher professional loan limits. Previously, the difference between “graduate” and “professional” programs was arbitrary—an annual institutional reporting requirement that held no financial implications. This distinction carries new weight under the OBBBA, with future borrowers eligible for federal loans of up to $20,500 annually and $100,000 in aggregate for graduate programs, or $50,000 annually and $200,000 in aggregate for professional programs.

The Department’s final proposal that got the go-ahead from negotiators was in line with a narrow interpretation of the “professional” program definition. It hews closely to the existing Code of Federal Regulations definition (34 CFR 668.2), with the addition of Ph.D. or Psy.D. clinical psychology programs. Programs under the same Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) codes as the identified programs would share the “professional” designation, resulting in over 40 degrees that may qualify for higher loan limits, provided they meet the other established and agreed-upon criteria, including being at the doctoral level and requiring post-graduation professional licensure.  

In crafting these loan limits, Congress acted upon mounting bipartisan concern that the amount students borrow for graduate school is not always aligned with their earnings after completion. Through the rulemaking process, the Department and negotiators collaborated to design a congruent regulatory approach that fulfills Congressional intent and reflects agreement that the federal government should address unmanageable debt loads among graduate student borrowers. The final definition will cover over 440,000 students currently enrolled in these identified professional degrees—an increase from just under 400,000 students in the Department’s original proposal, based on award year 2023-24 National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) data presented by the Department.¹ The consensus agreement also increases the proposed federal investment in loans for professional degrees, to the tune of $11.4 billion (up from $11 billion in the first proposal offered by the Department).²

There are certainly advocates and institutions who are not wholly satisfied with the outcome of the negotiated rulemaking. Negotiated rulemaking is an exercise in compromise, both on behalf of negotiators and the Department. Yet the definition creates a smart and clear regulatory framework that reflects Congressional intent in the OBBBA and delivers positive changes for students and taxpayers who are currently bearing the consequences of outdated policy decisions that haven’t benefited them. Advocates, political candidates, and elected officials from both the left and right have long called for changes to the student loan system. The consensus reached represents a significant step in the right direction, acknowledging the need to address high-cost programs with lower returns that leave students burdened with unaffordable debt, taxpayers footing the bill, and institutions with little stake in the postgraduate repayment outcomes of graduate students.

As the Department prepares to issue its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), it should resist calls to tweak the regulatory parameters or further expand the definition of professional programs. Large-scale changes such as these are challenging, and there will likely be a continued drumbeat of advocates, institutions, and trade associations calling for the Department to address their pet concerns and specific programs before the NPRM is released early next year and during the subsequent public comment window. Reaching consensus in negotiated rulemaking is a significant achievement for both the Department and the negotiators, and it is incumbent on the Department to respect the agreement of consensus reached with negotiators and make as few changes as possible to the agreed-upon proposal from negotiated rulemaking.