By SUSAN. JONES

The controversial move by the U.S. Department of Education to limit the types of graduate degrees that qualified as “professional” – and thereby make fewer degrees eligible for higher federal student loans – is on hold after a judge’s ruling last week.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled on June 24 that the Education Department’s definition of professional degrees is likely inconsistent with the definition that Congress included when creating the loan caps last year in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Howell also said the department’s rulemaking process likely violated the Administrative Procedures Act, according to Higher Ed Dive.

The statutory definition of a professional degree is “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 Education Department used that definition to say that only 11 graduate degrees fall into this category: medicine, law, dentistry, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, chiropractic, theology and clinical psychology. It classified graduate and PhD programs in nursing, education, social work, engineering, accounting, architecture, public health, physician assistant, physical/occupational therapy, audiology and speech-language pathology as “non-professional.”

The impact of the new classifications, which were scheduled to be implemented starting July 1, is that federal loans for students pursuing graduate or doctoral degrees in the “professional” programs would be capped at $200,000 lifetime, while the “non-professional” degrees would be limited to $100,000.

What does this mean for Pitt?

While the stay issued by the judge prevents the Education Department from implementing its narrowed definition of “professional,” it does not resolve which additional programs will qualify as professional. It left that to the department, which has not issued a statement since the ruling last week.

This leaves universities like Pitt in limbo over how what aid can be administered for the coming academic year.

Provost Joe McCarthy said in an interview in early June that Pitt was in contact with those who were challenging the Education Department’s professional designations.  The suit ruled on last week was brought by American Association of Nurse Practitioners and the PA (physician assistant) Education Association.

“Pitt has been such a source of workforce development in really critical areas, like nursing, like education, like social work, like some of the allied health professionals that we create out of the SHRS program, PT, OT, audiology,” McCarthy said. “A lot of those are now going to have fewer options available to them, so we're really focused on how do we continue to be a source of critical workforce members.

“We think that having more options for financial support of folks that are pursuing those professions is important, but, by the same token, we're trying to make sure that we're communicating all of the options to the students that are looking to join Pitt.”

McCarthy said Pitt financial aid officials also are “gaining as much clarity as we can around the private loan market.” He said that some peer institutions have already been working on preferred lenders lists, which is something Pitt also is exploring.

Susan Jones is editor of the University Times. Reach her at suejones@pitt.edu or 724-244-4042.

Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.

Follow the University Times on Facebook.