Outcry over plan to alter what counts as professional degree
The body representing chartered professional accountants in the United States joined almost a dozen other national organisations – including those representing nurses, architects, engineers, social workers and MBAs – in denouncing the Department of Education (DoE) for proposing to remove the graduate qualifications that gave them entry into their professions from the official list of professional degree programmes.
The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), which represents the nation’s Certified Public Accountants (CPA), and state CPA societies inferred in a statement on 24 November that the proposed changes would negatively affect the pipeline of students entering the profession.
“The definitions of professional degree programmes help determine loan eligibility, which can be a critical differentiator for a student striving to complete an accounting degree programme and become a CPA,” the statement said, noting that, according to the government’s own figures, “demand for accountants will continue to outstrip demand for jobs in general through 2034 (+5% growth vs +3%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics)”.
Student loan caps
The so-called “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) passed by Congress in July, which gave trillions of dollars in tax cuts to America’s wealthiest families, overhauled graduate student loan programmes by placing a cap of US$20,500 per year for graduate students in, for example, English or history and US$50,000 for graduate professional programmes.
Additionally, the OBBBA placed a lifetime aggregate limit of US$100,000 on government loans to graduate students and an aggregate limit of US$200,000 for professional programmes.
Under the rules announced by the DoE, professional degrees include law, dentistry, pharmacy, clinical psychology, chiropractic, and theology.
In a statement to Newsweek Magazine, Department of Education press secretary for higher education Ellen Keast brushed off criticisms, such as that of Patricia Pittman, a professor of health policy and management and director of George Washington University’s Fitzhugh Mullan Institute of Health Workforce Equity, who called the changes in the DoE’s Research, Innovation and Student Equity (RISE) report, made public in October, “a gut punch for nursing”.
Taking her cue from President Donald J Trump, Keast said: “This is fake news at its finest.” Then, ignoring the fact that the DoE is proposing major changes to the list of designated professions, she continued: “The Department has had a consistent definition of what constitutes a professional degree for decades and the consensus-based language aligns with historical precedent.”
Keast correctly asserted that: “The committee, which included institutions of higher education, agreed on the definition.”
However, only three of the nine primary members of the committee are affiliated with a university, and one, Andy Vaughn, is president and CEO of Alliant International University, a private for-profit institution based in Alhambra, California.
Even more importantly, none of the university-affiliated members (or alternates) comes from a university with a major business, nursing, public health, architecture or social work graduate school.
In the combative spirit of US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, who at a White House roundtable two days before Keast spoke to Newsweek assailed universities for “wasteful spending on armies of administrators and DEI programmes”, Keast said: “We’re not surprised that some institutions are crying wolf over the regulations that never existed because their unlimited tuition ride on the taxpayer dime is over.”
Professional shortages
Reactions from national associations have been uniformly negative, with most, like AICPA, pointing out the high cost of pursuing graduate work in these areas that these changes will result in decreased enrolment and, thereby, create shortages in these professions.
The American Nurses Association (ANA) predicted that delisting of graduate nursing “will severely restrict access to critical funding for graduate nursing education, undermining efforts to grow and sustain the nursing workforce”.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, at present there are some 193,000 unfilled nursing positions in the US and this gap will persist through the early 2030s.
“At a time when healthcare in our country faces a historic nurse shortage and rising demands,” the ANA’s statement continues, “limiting nurses’ access to funding for graduate education threatens the very foundation of patient care.
In many communities across the country, particularly in rural and underserved areas, advanced practice registered nurses ensure access to essential, high-quality care that would otherwise be unavailable. We urge the Department of Education to recognise nursing as the essential profession it is and ensure access to loan programmes that make advanced nursing education possible.”
Individual nurses such as the owner of IVs by the Seas, which offers IV therapy in Point Pleasant, New Jersey, and K Cantor took to social media to denounce the delisting of nursing.
“This really ruffles feathers ... 10 years of schooling for a doctorate, US$210k in student loans (which I was able to get BECAUSE a doctorate in nursing is a professional degree), and years and years of ER and trauma experience, and now I do not have a professional degree???!
“Have fun with your ongoing nursing shortage and long wait times, and let’s continue to support the already broken healthcare system!” posted the owner of IVs by the Seas.
For her part, Cantor wrote: “[H]ow is nursing no longer considered a professional degree? Just a few years ago, we were celebrated as ‘health care heroes’ [hundreds of thousands banging pots celebrating nurses during COVID], the backbone of healthcare, going onto the frontlines to care for our patients. This feels like a punch to the stomach.”
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) not only slammed the RISE recommendations, but it also pointed out that the RISE committee seemingly created the division out of whole cloth between those programmes that would continue to be considered “professional” and those that would be delisted.
The “OBBA did not define ‘professional degree’,” the ASHA press release states. “Instead it referred to an existing regulatory definition [in the Higher Education Act (1965)] that lists several health professions as examples and some law and theology programmes. These examples did not include audiology or speech-language pathology.”
Instead of going forward with the list of professions that had been developed over decades, the DoE convened the RISE committee that, contrary to ASHA’s submission that said that the examples in the regulations were just that, examples, the committee decided on a “narrower definition”.
The effect of this narrowed definition was to “add … programmes that were most ‘closely related’ to the existing examples” and, thus, to exclude audiology, speech-language pathology programmes, and many related fields (emphasis in the original) – including occupational therapy and physical therapy.”
Undermining a ‘trusted’ profession
The American Accounting Association couched its disapproval carefully but left little doubt that it believes the DoE did not fully understand the ramifications of the RISE report’s recommendations.
“We are deeply concerned with the removal of a professional degree programme under the OBBBA student-loan classification by the DoE. This could impact our members, as it may significantly challenge their students wanting to study on a student loan.
“It also undermines a very trusted profession that has been around for centuries, a profession supporting and leading organisations and the capital markets,” Yvonne Hinson, CEO of the American Accounting Association, wrote in an e-mail to University World News.
Hinson further wrote that she believes the government’s proposal to delist accountants “shows that the current administration does not understand the crucial role that accountants play in our organisations, the not-for-profit space, public accounting, and in society as a whole”.
Hinson appealed to the administration in the sort of business language that the president and secretaries like Howard Lutnick (commerce) and Scott Bessent (treasury) routinely use: “Trust in capital markets is critical for our success as a country, and that trust in accountants and the role we play comes from the recognition [that] we have long had as a profession, the robust exams required for accounting certifications and designation, the extensive education and the continuing education required, and adherence to a strong code of ethics.”
Like its sister organisation AICPA, Hinson also drew attention to how the proposed changes would negatively affect the flow of students into the profession.
“The impact on students and our accounting pipeline into the profession could be significant,” Hinson told University World News. “Students wanting or needing to pursue a graduate accounting degree on student loans may face financial challenges, as many accounting graduate programmes are in excess of the new US$20,500 annual cap.
“At a time when we are seeing more students interested in accounting, and a time when many accounting associations, firms and corporations are proactively working on the pipeline into our profession, this decision could lead to a downturn in accounting enrolments,” wrote Hinson.
Architectural crisis
For its part, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) slammed the government for “any proposal or policy that fails to recognise architects as professionals, particularly when designating which degrees qualify for student loans.”
It said: “The title ‘architect’ is earned through years of rigorous education, extensive professional examinations, and a demanding licensing process. To classify otherwise dismisses expertise, professional standards, and education that define the profession.”
Further, the AIA stated that by delisting students in schools of architecture (which are graduate schools in the US) and thereby lowering the loan cap for these students, the government “will reduce the number of architects who can afford to pursue this professional degree” and, thereby, reduce the number of architects in the country.”
This enforced reduction in the supply of architects will exacerbate a shortage in architects that Architecture Magazine predicted last January.
“The US Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates the architectural field will expand by 5% between 2022 and 2032, with an average of 8,200 new job openings annually. Despite the positive news, this prediction does not reconcile with a 15% dip in college graduates, which will likely reduce the proportion of the youngest entrants to the profession by a similar percentage,” reported the magazine in an article titled “Architectural crisis ahead: The impending talent shortfall and how to overcome it”.
Ongoing attack on higher education
Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, is also concerned by the effect of the DoE’s definitions, especially in regard to health science graduate degrees – and sees in the RISE committee’s decision another attack on higher education by an administration which, as these pages have shown, has been hostile to American academe since taking office in January.
“By limiting loan funding through the exclusion of these programmes,” Pasquerella said in an email to University World News, “the administration risks discouraging students from pursuing programmes in health, education, and social work, where there is a vital need to address workforce shortages and enhance diversity.”
Noting that many of these health professions are “aimed at addressing disparities in underserved communities, further restricting access to these professions [by reducing access to student loans] exacerbates socioeconomic inequality,” she said.
Pasquerella concluded her email by saying that by effectively restricting access to professional programmes, the government “also devalues the civic and public purpose of higher education while simultaneously reinforcing the commodification of college degrees”.
‘Fearmongering’ among nurses
As this article was being finalised, the DoE issued a press release titled “Myth vs Fact: The Definition of Professional Degrees”, which deals mainly with nurses.
“Certain progressive voices,” the DoE said, “have been fearmongering about the Department of Education supposedly excluding nursing degrees from being eligible for graduate student loans. This is misinformation. This fact sheet sets the record straight regarding the proposed treatment of nursing programmes under new lending limits established by the Act.”
The fact sheet makes clear that the administration has been stung by criticism.
According to the ‘myth’ that the administration does not view nurses as professionals because nursing is not classified as a ‘professional degree’, the administration presented a rather formalised response that obfuscates the issue.
“The definition of a ‘professional degree’ is an internal definition used by the Department to distinguish among programmes that qualify for higher loan limits, not a value judgement about the importance of programmes. It has no bearing on whether a programme is professional in nature or not.”
The administration also declared concerns about a nursing shortage to be a myth.
According to the release: “Department of Education data indicates that 95% of nursing students borrow below the annual loan limit and therefore are not affected by the new caps.
“It is important to remember that the loan limits are limited to graduate programmes and have no impact on undergraduate nursing programmes, including four-year Bachelor of Science in Nursing degrees and two-year associate’s degrees in nursing. 80% of the nursing workforce does not have a graduate degree.”
Twice in the press release the government asserts that its actions are designed to force universities to lower tuition rates and that this will, in fact, help nursing students seeking advanced degrees.
These include family nurse practitioners, acute care gerontology nurse practitioners or paediatric nurse practitioners, all of which require an MSc or PhD in these same fields or health systems research, policy analysis or researchers in clinical and population health.
According to the press release, “placing a cap on loans will push the remaining graduate nursing programmes to reduce their programme costs, ensuring that nurses will not be saddled with unmanageable student loan debt”.
The DoE also stated that while its hands were tied by the “unanimous” decision of the RISE committee about the “definition of ‘professional student’ for increased loan limits”, the “public will have another opportunity to weigh in on this issue as the Department finalises the rule early next year”.