By Mel Wilson, NASW Senior Policy Advisor
Recently, the Department of Education (ED} made public its intention to define advanced nursing, social work, allied medical degrees, among others as being “non-professional” education. Such reclassifications not only undermine the rigorous academic training and specialized expertise required in these areas, but also belittles the vital role these practitioners play in enhancing public health and social stability. Additionally, we must not ignore that this policy change disproportionately impacts women, who make up 70–85% of students in these fields.
Context and Background
In order to fully understand the motivation for and implementation of the reclassification by DOE, we have to look at the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) of 2025. There is language in the bill that requires, ED to eliminate an entire loan program for graduate students and consolidate repayment options for future borrowers. In order to complete the required reconciliations, ED reconfigured how it defined “professional education loans.”
ED does not make public annual loan allocation specifically for “professional degree loan funds.” The department determines its education loan budget by federal student borrowing limits and overall demand. However, given that graduate and professional students — as a group— account for over half of all new federal student loans each year, the available funds in question are approximately $50 billion annually.
The rules for defining qualifications for eligibility and the dollar limits the loans rests the Code of Federal Regulations. This particular definition reads, “a professional degree signifies the completion of academic requirements needed to begin practice in a profession. It requires skills beyond those of a bachelor’s degree and generally involves professional licensure.”
In any event, ED updated its “professional degree” list by determining that nursing, allied health, and social work graduate programs are now classified as academic degrees rather than professional degrees. This primarily impacts how schools classify graduates. Professional degrees (like MD, JD, DDS) are considered “terminal credentials” for entry into regulated professions. By contrast, ED now treats nursing/social work master’s/Ph.D.’s as advanced “academic training.” This term is a regulatory redefinition used by ED’s so that some graduate programs can be included as “professional degrees” for federal student aid and loan purposes.
Key Impact of the ED “Non-Professional” Declaration
Firstly, it should be pointed out that current social work practitioners and those with existing loans are unaffected by the ED reclassification of “professional education.” However, new Master of Social Work (MSW) and Doctor of Social Work (DSW)/Ph.D. students will face reduced access to funding from federal loan programs. That aside, the ED reclassification decision definitely and directly affects funding, accessibility, and the perceived status of these helping professions. It is for those reasons leaders in the impacted fields strongly oppose the ED changes. These leaders unambiguously declare that the ED non-professional classification is fundamentally wrong.
Specific Professions Effected – Reduced federal loan eligibility Graduate students in:
- Nursing (MSN, DNP),
- Social work (MSW, DSW), public health (MPH, DrPH),
- Physician assistant,
- Occupational therapy, physical therapy,
- Audiology,
- Speech-language pathology, and
- Counseling programs
General Overview of Impact
Because of the financial strain on graduate education professional associations warn that limiting access to funding for graduate and Ph.D. education would likely discourage enrollment, reduce diversity in the professions, and ultimately weaken the pipeline of advanced practitioners. Additionally, potential workforce impact Reduced financial support may deter students from pursuing advanced degrees, leading to shortages in highly trained nurses, social workers, and allied health professionals.
Negative Effect on Women Seeking Advanced Degrees
When discussing impact, it is an imperative that we note the professional reclassification’s effect on women. Data further reveal that the professions losing federal support are overwhelmingly female-dominated.
The breakdown includes:
Nursing -85% women
Social Work -82% women
Counseling -70% women; and
Public Health -72% women.
It should be noted that women disproportionately rely on federal loans particularly.
The disparate impact of the reclassification on women should not be a surprise. These fields attract women and people of color—more than 80 percent of public‑health majors are women, and 55 percent are individuals of color. Reducing access to federal loans to cover the costs of these careers will shut out communities whose providers most often return home to serve them —in rural towns, low‑income neighborhoods, tribal nations and immigrant communities.
Overall Financial Strain on Graduate Education
The Department of Education’s decision to classify nursing, allied health, and social work master’s/Ph.D. programs as non-professional degrees has significant financial consequences for future students. For example, the change will reconfigure loan ceilings in the following ways:
- A medical student can borrow up to $40,500 annually on federal loans. By comparison, a social work Ph.D. student, under the new classification, may only borrow $20,500 annually.
- This shift essentially raises the financial barrier to graduate education in fields that are critical to healthcare and social services. It risks creating a two-tier system where medicine and law remain accessible through federal support, while nursing and social work become financially prohibitive for many.
- Excluding social work from professional degree eligibility, combined with the OBBBA’s proposed elimination of Graduate PLUS loans, could make it more difficult for students to pursue graduate education in critical service professions.
- Higher out-of-pocket costs Tuition for advanced nursing (MSN, DNP) or social work (MSW, Ph.D.) programs can exceed $40,000–$80,000. Without professional loan status, students may face gaps between federal aid and actual program costs, forcing them to pay more upfront.
- Limited access to ED student loans creates barriers for lower-income students and many students of color from pursuing graduate education in the fields effected by ED’s reclassification of the term “professional education.” This will reduce diversity and representation in professions that serve vulnerable populations.
Workforce Impact
In expressing its concerns about the impact of the ED “non-professional” designation on the affected workforce, the New York Academy of Medicine stated, “This proposal fails to acknowledge the current deep vulnerabilities across the healthcare ecosystem, where workforce gaps that affect nursing, public health practitioners, and clinical specialists are widening. Imposing new barriers, such as those recommended by the Department of Education, risks destabilizing the already stressed health system.”
The existing shortages of nurses are already at a crisis level. More than 138,000 nurses left the workforce in 2022, and nearly 40% plan to leave by 2029. Social work also struggles with retention and burnout. Cutting off loan access accelerates these shortages. Fewer nurses mean longer wait times, higher patient-to-nurse ratios, and increased risk of medical errors.
Relatedly, the U.S. The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts a substantial deficit of 74,000 social workers each year for the next decade, highlighting a critical need for solutions . The demand for social services continues to rise creating a growing need for dedicated professionals who can address complex social issues. With the expectation that the ED reclassification and the corresponding reduction in student loans aid, the availability of qualified social workers in the near future will be impactful. Fewer social workers mean less access to mental health care, child welfare services, and community support.
Conclusion
Even if we take ED’s stated primary objectives— to create clear and consistent criteria for what constitutes a professional degree— at face value, designating social work, nursing and allied health education as being “non-professional” is not justifiable. This is because the consequences for aspiring practitioners are too great. As the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) states. “Graduate students in critical healthcare fields could be significantly limited in accessing federal financing, posing potential impacts on social work education, and the supply of practitioners.”
Similarly, American Nurses Association (ANA) raised alarms about ED’s decision and encouraged ED “to engage with nursing stakeholders and revise the “professional degree” definition to explicitly include nursing education pathways. Ensuring robust support for nursing education is essential to the future of safe, quality care delivery.”
Along those same lines, it seems reasonable that impacted professions join the New York Academy of Medicine call to action to be “committed to working in concert with our diverse community of Fellows, which includes nurses and other clinicians, researchers, educators, and public health leaders, to oppose this measure.”
Social work and other effected professional organizations call on ED to recognize that the nation’s health depends on a fully supported, interdisciplinary workforce. ED is expected to release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking— posted in the Federal Registry in early 2026. Once opened, concerned organizations will be able to make opening public comments. It is imperative for health professionals and consumers to unite in ensuring that all members of the health workforce are recognized as essential, rigorous, and invaluable.
Finally, it would be remiss if this summary failed to again mention the disproportionate harm of the “professional” reclassification on social work students— and other affected professionals—on women and people of color. This concern cannot be understated when we realize that women and people of color depend on loans to complete advanced degrees much more than their White counterparts. Therefore, calls to action and organizational comments opposing ED’s actions must address disproportionality issues associated with gender and race/ethnicity.
