Legacy news and social media have exploded into a panic with the Department of Education’s recent announcement about reinstating amendments made to the 1965 Higher Education Act. Included in the legislation text of the One Big Beautiful Bill, this regulation contains narrow definitions of “professional” and “graduate” degrees in terms of federal funding for student loans. It didn’t take long for the societal panic to induce a rapid spread of hasty generalizations built upon a severe lack of research analysis. This article aims to inform, clarify, and explain the “why” and “what” with extensive data research as the foundation.
ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL
In section 81001 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), an amendment was made to section 455(a) of the Higher Education Act 1965 that added “and federal direct plus loans” to the heading of paragraph three after ‘Loans’. Aside from this, legislation remanded the distinction between professional degrees and graduate degrees as it was first established in 1965.
A graduate student is one who studies to obtain a master’s/graduate degree through a program of study that awards a graduate credential not considered a professional degree. As such, these student’s federal loans under the 1965 Higher Education Act are capped at a full and total (aggregate) amount of $100,000.
Separately, a professional student is one who studies through a program that awards a professional degree. These student’s federal loans are capped at a full and total (aggregate) amount of $200,000.
As the research proves, this was first established in 1965. This is not a brand-new initiative of the Trump administration.
However, the administration has put forward its’ own intended purposes for reinstating this federal regulation into practice. Above all, the OBBBA’s entire main objective is to severely cut back on federal spending to reduce the deficit. For this specific amendment to the act, addressing debt within the context of student loans is the goal when capping federal student loans (more will be discussed regarding student debt further in this article).
Legitimizing the 1965 federal regulation is recognized by the administration as the means to address ballooning student debt and incentivize responsible borrowing from the federal government. Within the current system (Graduate PLUS loans), students are able to borrow up to the entirety of their attendance cost. The claim is that this has fueled excessive student debt in the United States.
Secondly, capping student borrowing within this reinstated program is intended to reign in any risk that is imposed on U.S. taxpayers and borrowers, so no one takes on more debt than they are prepared to handle. Let’s now review the situation from square one.
HIGHER EDUCATION ACT 1965
The Higher Education Act was passed in 1965 “to ensure every individual has access to higher education.” Primarily intended to help lower and middle-income families attain better access to higher education, the definitions of “professional degree” and “graduate degree” were necessarily created in 1965 so higher education institutions would be able to participate in HEA programs and receive distributed aid through consistent rules established by federal eligibility standards.
Higher education institutions are defined within this document.
Simply – to best offer long-term aid without debilitating the system and running education funding into a deficit, a set of federal regulations were needed in order to establish a dependable funding procedure. Rather than choosing between increased access or sustainable funding, it was decided that both would be upheld upon the necessary condition of sound definitions and eligibility standards. You can’t have your cake and eat it too; there must be structure and regulations in place to safeguard the system.
Within section (a)4(C) of the act a professional student is defined as “a student enrolled in a program of study that awards a professional degree, as defined under section 668.2 of title 34 CFR upon completion of the program.” This sort of program is above the baccalaureate level, providing a degree that “signifies both completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession and a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor’s degree. Professional licensure is also generally required.” The definition continues to provide specific examples of such a degree (but is not limited to) Pharmacy, Dentistry, Veterinary Medicine, Chiropractic, Law, Medicine, Optometry, Osteopathic Medicine, Podiatry, and Theology.
The document blatantly states this list is not limited to those mentioned above.
As for the distinction of graduate versus professional, this federal regulation specifies that a graduate program requires students to obtain licensure in either medicine, osteopathy, dentistry, clinical psychology, marriage and family counseling, clinical social work, and clinical counseling. Within these areas, graduates must also fulfill a required postgraduate training program of three or more years that is also clearly defined in Subpart A of Part 668.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
First and foremost, this means that the definitions that separate professional degrees from graduate degrees are not newly created or imposed by the Trump administration. It is, in fact, a long-standing regulatory definition, as the category distinction of specific fields of study is also long-standing since 1965.
It was also recently announced that the Department of Education will be implementing a CIP code system intended to use objective means to distinguish the separate degree programs from one another. The federal claim is that not every program deserves a higher loan cap so, using this code system objectively provides data to determine how best to distribute federal loan caps. Shockingly (but not quite), this was also included in the initial 1965 federal regulation.
The CIP code system “collects data on educational programs, including the number of students enrolled, degrees awarded, and program completion rates.” It is meant to help track resource allocation, the development of curriculum, and determining an institution’s eligibility for financial aid. Some believe that this code system is much too rigid and objective to implement, while others believe a highly objective method is utterly necessary.
The big upset that was largely misinformed is concerned with what the determinations within the federal regulation mean for federal student loans for graduate and professional degree programs.
FEDERAL LOANS
Within the scope of professional degrees, professional licensure is required which grants a higher loan cap for students to utilize. As stated above, professional student loans will be capped at an aggregate $200,000. For graduate degrees, licensure (different from professional licensure) is required but will grant a lower loan cap for students. Graduate student loans will be capped at an aggregate $100,000.
At face value, it seems as though the programs that take students the longest to work through (graduate) are being granted the lower loan cap. The programs that take a lesser amount of time to work through (professional) are being granted a higher loan cap. Why wouldn’t the students working through the lengthier programs receive the higher loan caps?
EDUCATION COST
The problem lies with the cost of both programs and the amount of student debt accumulated, not so much the time required for completion.
Southern Methodist University reported findings from the Education Data Initiative in 2023 that said the average cost of obtaining a PhD (graduate degree) was about $106,000. In contrast, the average cost of obtaining a Doctorate (professional degree) was about $150,000. When considering expenses at face value, professional degree programs cost students more than graduate programs. What about the cost of student debt?
The Education Data Initiative published a study that analyzed the accumulation of student debt from both types of degree programs. The average outstanding balance for a Graduate PLUS loan recipient has amounted to $106,000. Borrowers working for a master’s degree owe an average $81,000 while borrowers working for a doctorate owe an average $180,000. The average amount of debt for a graduate degree recipient is around $60,000 and $200,000 for professional degree recipients. From an average estimate standpoint, debt accumulated for both programs is astronomical let alone the separate amounts specific to each program. What about the number of students completing each program?
The Education Data Initiative also published a study this year (2025) that summarized the average attendance and reception rates for each degree program in the U.S. It was calculated that of relevant students 18 years or older, only 3.3% received a doctorate or professional degree. 3.6% of these were men and 2.9% were women. Similarly, only 9.9% of students within the same age demographic received a master’s or graduate degree. Of these, 11.1% were women and 8.7% were men.
Out of relevant adults aged 25 years or older, 11.1% have a master’s or graduate degree as their highest academic achievement. Within the same age demographic, only 3.7% have a doctorate or professional degree as their highest academic achievement.
The National Center for Educational Statistics published a report covering statistics through the 2022-2023 academic year. Of U.S. citizens, permanent residents and nonresidents working for a professional degree, 205,239 were conferred (given) their degrees. 86,233 recipients were men and 119,006 were women. Of U.S. citizens, permanent residents and nonresidents working for a graduate degree, 933,080 were conferred (given) their degrees. 361,374 recipients were men and 571,706 were women. In 2023, it was recorded by the Census Bureau that in 2022 only 14% of U.S. adults 25 years or older received either a graduate or professional degree. The PEW Research Center reported similar statistics.
The report also indicated that the fastest-growing occupations for individuals with graduate degrees included nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and occupational therapists. Consequentially, the fastest-growing occupations for individuals with professional degrees included medical scientists, physical therapists, and veterinarians.
This data shows that the price of professional and graduate degree programs is wildly expensive, even when merely calculating averages. Secondly, the amount of student debt accumulated in the U.S. for both graduate and professional degrees on average is also wildly expensive. Finally, the data shows that only a slim minority of the American population actually receives a graduate or professional degree. On top of this, the federal government through Federal Student Aid provides around $120 billion annually for higher education. The Department of Education announced that graduate student loans alone make up half of the $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.
This does beg the question, why is it still so expensive if the government is funneling billions of dollars into graduate and professional degree programs? Also, why are so few Americans receiving these degrees?
Let’s start with the cost of tuition. Starting in 2007, graduate and professional students were allowed to borrow up to the full cost of attendance for these programs. In response, institutions began increasing tuition rates. Georgetown published a report in 2024 that found the cost of graduate degree programs alone had increased by 233% since 2000. Additionally, the overall cost of attaining a graduate degree has tripled over the last 20 years. This has also exacerbated the incurred median debt, causing it to rise over 50% – from about $34,000 to about $50,000.
As program costs skyrocket and students have taken out loans for nearly the entire cost of their tuition, all of this has countered the earnings advantage from post-academic careers that is largely advertised. This means that although higher education institutions continue to tell students that the earnings from the jobs they will be able to get after they finish school will pay back what they’ve spent to get through school, data suggests this is no longer a simple truth.
What about the job market then?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported in September that the job market pertaining to nonfarm jobs (jobs where people are not farmers, private household employees, self-employed, or active military personnel) is currently sustaining a 4.4% unemployment rate. That’s about 7.6 million people unemployed for various reasons. Of the unemployed, 23.6% are classified as long-term unemployed.
That being said, general employment is actually experiencing a trending increase in areas like healthcare, food services and social assistance. Larger job losses remain in transportation, warehouses and the federal government. This shows that the labor industry is healing and on the mend, rather than societal rumors saying that employment is severely plummeting.
WHAT ARE THE CONCERNS?
Many are overwhelmingly concerned with this recent move for many reasons. First, some worry that this will harm the workforce pipeline for careers like nursing and social work if people are deterred from finishing school because they are unable to pay for it with lowered loan caps. The assumption here is that this will push students to take on private loans and make their debt worse. The intent behind reinstating the 1965 regulations is to force the cost of these programs to decrease, which will then reduce student debt in the long run.
Others have taken this personally, claiming that the Trump administration has deemed necessary jobs like nursing unimportant by not including nursing programs in the professional degree category. As it has already been explained, the use of the word “professional” is drawn from the 1965 federal regulation that distinguished professional from graduate upon terms related to the program qualifications. The Department of Education published a clarification saying that the classification of degree programs was not made by means of personal judgement so, this was not a move where the Trump administration decided that jobs like nursing are no longer important.
Within this post, the department even published data that showed 95% of nursing students who borrow below the annual limit of federal funding won’t be affected at all by the reinstated regulation anyways. Additionally, graduate nursing programs will be impacted in order to reduce costs which will reduce student debt. Even then, 80% of the nursing workforce doesn’t need a graduate degree to pursue a nursing career.
It must also be recognized that the outlined definitions of “professional” and “graduate” are not final. They are merely what has been proposed by the rulemaking committee of higher education stakeholders, certainly not by the Oval Office.
Additional research was collected for this article. Follow these links to peruse: USA TODAY, AUG. 28th LETTER, PEW, EDUCATION DATA, EDUCATION DATA, AEI, AEI, INTEGRATIVE, DATA USA
***
Katelyn Sims is a senior at Howard Payne University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts degree in social science with emphasis in American political studies, global studies and jurisprudence. She is also a student in the university’s Guy D. Newman Honors Academy, as well as a prominent member of the Student Speaker Bureau speech and debate team. Following graduation, Katelyn will pursue a career in the field of U.S. foreign policy.
Katelyn has worked as a news writer and marketing coordinator with Brownwood News since 2023. Her column The Truth Will Set You Free is intended for all people from all walks of life. Katelyn aspires to inform readers of major U.S. political and legislative activity with an unbiased analysis that engages with political ideologies on all sides of the aisle. She believes the public ought to exercise their free will to cultivate personalized opinions on controversial issues without the influence of mainstream media.
