New Bill Would Expand Definition Of Professional Degrees

The Professional Student Degree Act, introduced by Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and several other House Republicans, would expand the list of degrees considered “professional” under federal law. If enacted, the change would allow students in dozens of graduate programs to borrow up to $200,000 in federal Direct Loans – double the cap that would otherwise apply.

The proposal comes amidst criticism from industry trade groups and students about the upcoming loan caps. Under last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Grad PLUS loans will be eliminated for new borrowers starting July 1, 2026. 

In place of the uncapped borrowing for grad school, there will be new limits on Graduate Direct Loans. Those caps depend entirely on whether a program is classified as “graduate” or “professional.” 

Why The Professional vs. Graduate Definition Matters

Graduate programs have always had this classification, but prior to the OBBBA, it was only used for statistical purposes. 

Beginning in 2026, those definitions are being used to limit borrowing under the Direct Loan Program:

• Graduate students (master’s and most doctoral programs):
  $20,500 per year, with a $100,000 lifetime limit.
• Professional students (such as law and medical students):
  $50,000 per year, with a $200,000 lifetime limit.

The policy goal behind the change was to keep debt loads more closely aligned with earnings, while preserving higher limits for degrees that typically lead to high-paying careers.

But that approach only works if the “professional” category stays narrow.

Many degrees that feel “professional” in everyday language (such as social work, physical therapy, or public health) have instead been treated as standard graduate programs, subject to the lower $100,000 cap. This has led to criticism from both a labeling perspective, and from a potential limitation for future students wanting to enter these fields.

What The Professional Student Degree Act Would Change

The Professional Student Degree Act, the professional category would expand to include:

• Social work (MSW and DSW)
• Nursing (MSN, DNP, and Ph.D.)
• Physical therapy (DPT)
• Occupational therapy (MOT and OTD)
• Physician assistant programs
• Public health (MPH)
• Business administration (MBA and DBA)
• Accounting
• Architecture
• Education and special education
• Audiology

These new additions are on top of the ones already included:

• Law (LLB or JD)
• Medicine (MD or DO)
• Pharmacy (PharmD)
• Dentistry (DDS or DMD)
• Veterinary Medicine (DVM)
• Optometry (OD)
• Podiatric Medicine (DPM, DP, or Pod.D.)
• Clinical Psychology (Psy.D.) 
• Chiropractic (DC or DCM)
• Theology or Divinity (MDiv or MHL) 

The bill also gives the Secretary of Education authority to add “any other degree” that meets the broad criteria.

In practical terms, a student pursuing an MBA, MPH, MSW, or MEd could gain access to an additional $100,000 in federal borrowing compared with current law.

Pros and Cons

For students weighing graduate school after 2026, the stakes are high.

A student in a program classified as “graduate” would need to finance anything beyond $100,000 through savings, private loans, or employer support. A student in a “professional” program could rely far more heavily on federal loans, which offer income-driven repayment plans and loan forgiveness options that private loans do not.

Supporters of the bill argue that many of the newly included programs are essential public service professions that require advanced training and carry rising tuition costs.

Critics counter that access to larger federal loans does not reduce the price of graduate education – and may even encourage schools to raise it.

Earnings data underscore the concern. Programs currently treated as professional degrees tend to lead to substantially higher pay. Median earnings five years after graduation for these fields are roughly $134,000, compared with about $75,000 for programs included under the proposed expansion, according to the American Enterprise Institute. 

That gap matters because federal loan repayment ultimately depends on income. Borrowing $200,000 may be manageable for a physician or dentist, but could be financially challenging for a social worker or teacher.

Broader Policy Debate

Congress imposed graduate loan limits in the first place to curb what lawmakers saw as a feedback loop: unlimited borrowing allowed universities to raise tuition, while students took on debt they often could not repay.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the new loan caps will save taxpayers close to $7 billion per year by reducing loan forgiveness costs and defaults.

Opponents of the Professional Student Degree Act argue that expanding the professional category to cover a large share of graduate programs would undo much of that progress. By some estimates, the bill’s definition could apply to roughly 70% of graduate student borrowers.

Supporters respond that earnings vary widely within fields, and that loan caps should not be the sole tool for controlling graduate education costs.

What Happens Next?

The bill faces an uncertain path in Congress. While it has support from some lawmakers and higher-education groups, it runs counter to the cost-containment logic that drove last year’s reforms.

For now, the existing definitions remain in place, and the end of Grad PLUS loans in 2026 is still approaching.

For students and families considering graduate school, the safest assumption is that borrowing will become more limited. That makes understanding program costs, future earnings, and repayment options more important than ever.

Don’t Miss These Other Stories: