The Education Department is preparing to tackle the intricate task of implementing sweeping changes introduced in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which mandates reclassification of degree programs into “graduate” and “professional” categories. This differentiation has profound implications for federal aid distribution. Currently, the terms were largely seen as interchangeable, but under the new legislation, graduate student loans would be capped at $20,500 annually or $100,000 total, while professional students could borrow significantly more.
The responsibility to define what qualifies as a professional program now falls on Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent and an advisory committee. The challenge is to create regulations that adhere to a foundational definition from the bill but provide a practical application. The committee’s initial proposal includes well-established professional programs like medicine and law, but also features a clause allowing the addition of other programs by the Secretary through rulemaking.
However, opinions diverge on how broad the interpretation should be. University lobbyists favor a wider definition to include diverse programs, suggesting that institutions self-certify their offerings with departmental oversight. Conversely, consumer advocates argue for maintaining a narrow scope to prevent excessive student debt, noting that a significant portion of the student loan portfolio comes from graduate education.
The current list of professional degrees, based on the Higher Education Act of 1965, includes fields requiring licensure such as pharmacy, dentistry, and veterinary medicine. Advocacy groups, such as the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, support a flexible definition, emphasizing the need to adapt to evolving educational and economic landscapes. In contrast, organizations like Third Way advocate for rigidity to curb unnecessary student debt.
The timeline for these decisions is tight, as the new loan limits are set to commence on July 1, 2026, which contributes to the urgency of finalizing definitions. Institutions might not see a proposed rule until later this fall, potentially impacting students who are making educational decisions without clarity on borrowing limits.
The committee’s task is further complicated by differing stakeholder interests, with high stakes on reaching a consensus. Should the committee fail to agree, the department can independently interpret and implement the terms of the legislation. This situation may prompt debates about which programs qualify as professional, notably amid indications that the current administration may favor a narrower interpretation.
The process underscores the complexities of educational policy-making and its significant impact on students, institutions, and the federal aid landscape. Balancing these interests requires careful deliberation to ensure that the definition is both practical for today’s educational environment and aligned with legislative intent to manage student debt effectively.