At issue: a working list of 鈥減rofessional鈥� programs that require advanced degrees and licenses. Circulated online last month, it amounts to just 11 fields, including doctors, dentists and attorneys, among others.

Left out are virtually all other professions that, in many cases, require advanced degrees and licenses. 

The proposed change is part of a GOP effort to trim not just student debt and federal spending but college costs more broadly. 

In practical terms, enrolling in a 鈥減rofessional鈥� program would give students the ability to borrow up to $50,000 per year in federal loans, or $200,000 over the course of their graduate school career. By contrast, programs that don鈥檛 fall into one of the 11 fields would give students access to just $20,500 a year, or $100,000 total. That often doesn鈥檛 cover the cost of a graduate education, advocates say, leaving students to rely on families or expensive private loans.

鈥淚t is a bad situation for a lot of professions,鈥� said Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations at the , which represents college presidents. The council has over the list, saying the U.S. Department of Education should broaden it to include, among others, nurses, social workers and many kinds of teachers.

In a , the American Association of Colleges of Nursing said it was 鈥渄eeply concerned鈥� by the department鈥檚 proposed definition, saying it 鈥渆xcludes nursing and significantly limits student loan access.鈥�

In a statement, Education Department spokeswoman Ellen Keast blamed social media 鈥渕isinformation鈥� about the rule-making process for confusion about the administration鈥檚 moves. Much of the uproar has spread via videos on sites like and .

Keast said the plans are still in development, and that reducing lending limits will reduce students鈥� costs. 鈥淲e expect that institutions charging tuition rates well above market prices will consider lowering tuition thanks to these historic reforms,鈥� she said.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, told 社区黑料 the student debt crisis 鈥渨ill not be solved by making arbitrary judgements about which professions 鈥榙eserve鈥� support. Lifetime and annual borrowing caps hit career-changers and graduate students hardest, especially as the cost of higher education continues to rise.鈥�

AFT also represents nurses, librarians, higher education faculty and graduate students who teach and do research.

Dina Kastner, public policy and advocacy manager for the National Association of Social Workers, said federal loan limits 鈥渨ill really have an impact鈥� on social work students.

鈥淔or people who are going to graduate school 鈥� particularly in a profession like social work, where a graduate degree is needed for a lot of the work that social workers do 鈥� it’s definitely a problem,鈥� she said in an interview. 

The association has been hearing 鈥渃onsistently鈥� from members since details about the changes began trickling out, she said.

A consensus or a 鈥榮tranglehold鈥�?

While the effort is part of a broader one by Congress in President Trump鈥檚 to limit the burden of graduate student debt and cap federal borrowing, details of the two categories actually took shape as the Education Department initiated the rule-making process, said ACE鈥檚 Fansmith.

Department representatives proposed that instead of trying to figure out all of the programs that fit under the 鈥減rofessional鈥� category, they would rely on a list of 10 professions originally cited as 鈥渆xamples鈥� 鈥� and declared that those are eligible for the higher borrowing limits. 

鈥淵ou would think it’s an oversight, because the actual statutory language says these 10 are 鈥榚xamples,鈥欌�� Fansmith said. 鈥淓ssentially, what they said was, 鈥榃e are going to do the minimum possible,鈥� in part because they’re really trying to limit how much students can borrow.鈥� That, despite the fact that in several fields, such as education and nursing, employers are facing huge demands for highly trained workers, he said. 

After two weeks of talks, Fansmith said, negotiators agreed to add an 11th category to the 鈥減rofessional鈥� list: clinical psychology.

He called the process 鈥渃ompletely crazy鈥� and not what Congress intended for the lending program. 鈥淭his administration is kind of shooting ourselves in the foot and doing something that鈥檚 going to have really lasting harm until it’s overturned.鈥�

In its statement, the department did not directly address the process it followed, but in a 鈥淢yth vs. Fact鈥� , issued Nov. 24, it called the proposed limits on lending 鈥渃ommonsense鈥� and said a negotiating committee offered 鈥渁 consensus definition鈥� for the two categories 鈥� one that it says is now being bent out of shape by fear-mongering 鈥減rogressive voices.鈥�

The department said federal data indicates that 95% of nursing students borrow below the annual $100,000 loan limit 鈥渁nd therefore are not affected by the new caps.鈥�

It also noted that it 鈥渉as not prejudged the rulemaking process and may make changes in response to public comments鈥� over the next few months.

That hasn鈥檛 stopped professional groups from protesting in advance. The nurses鈥� association said that, as of 2022, more than one in four RNs planned to leave nursing or retire over the next five years. One in five holds a master’s degree or higher, it said, and demand for nurses with advanced degrees 鈥� in clinical specialties, teaching and research 鈥� 鈥渇ar outstrips the supply.鈥�

鈥楧rowning in debt鈥�

The move to limit lending comes, in part, from a conservative belief that expanding financial aid via big federal loans not only creates a debt problem for students 鈥� it also allows universities to quietly inflate costs as many students borrow the entire amount needed to attend.

The idea is sometimes called , after former U.S. Education Secretary William Bennett. In 1987, he wrote that increases in federal aid had 鈥渆nabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.鈥�

Nearly 40 years later, the idea lives on: In 2023 when Republicans in Congress to lower college costs, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said, 鈥淥ur federal higher education financing system contributes more to the problem than the solution. Colleges and universities using the availability of federal loans to increase their tuitions have left too many students drowning in debt without a path for success.鈥�

Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, in October said Congress鈥檚 budget bill, which will Grad PLUS loans as of July 2026, has bring costs down. As an example, he said Santa Clara University School of Law next fall will give incoming full-time students a guaranteed $16,000 tuition scholarship, renewable for up to three years, the duration of the program. That amounts to an effective $16,000 cut in net tuition, he said.

The relationship between credit availability and tuition rates is difficult to track directly, but a few studies have found a connection. In 2015, economist David O. Lucca and colleagues changes in subsidized loan maximums had an effect on tuition, especially for 鈥渕ore expensive degrees, those offered by private institutions, and for two-year or vocational programs.鈥� Other studies have found the effect more pronounced in .

By contrast, in 2017, , who studies college costs at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, law school tuition rates and found 鈥渇ar less evidence for the Bennett Hypothesis than I expected to see.鈥� 

He offered several explanations, among them that law schools that raise tuition by more than competitors may see declines in applicants and revenue, and that greater availability of federal loans simply shifts students鈥� debt out of private banks and into the public system: In 2003, he noted, 36% of law students took out private loans. By 2011, five years after Grad PLUS loans debuted, it was just 5%.

Kastner of the social workers鈥� association said limiting how much graduate students can borrow, combined with the of Grad PLUS loans, is 鈥渁 double whammy鈥� for students. As a result, many will be forced to rely once again on private banks, which demand higher interest rates and offer fewer protections if they can鈥檛 pay loans back.

Asked if she had sympathy for the effort to lower students鈥� debt burden by restricting graduate borrowing, Kastner replied, 鈥淚 don’t see it that way. I think it’s just making things more difficult for students.鈥�

Kastner herself struggled to get her degree in the mid-1990s. By the time she began her social work career in Chicago in 1997, her debt amounted to about $40,000. Her monthly payment: $600, the equivalent one semi-monthly paycheck. 

She eventually got help from her parents to pay back her loans, but said squeezing new professionals will present 鈥渁 real challenge,鈥� especially for first-generation students 鈥渨ho may not have the family resources to really help them bridge that gap.鈥�

ACE鈥檚 Fansmith said the department should be considering policies, such as income- based repayment and long-term loan forgiveness, that could actually address budgetary and student debt problems 鈥渨ithout simply saying, 鈥榊ou can’t access the education.鈥欌��

He noted that the final rules, slated to take effect in July, won鈥檛 be written until early next year. In the meantime, he anticipates heated public comments from nurses, social workers, educators and other professions. 

鈥淚t wouldn’t be shocking to see Congress step in,鈥� said Fansmith. 鈥淣urses are, understandably and appropriately, a really sympathetic group.鈥� And everyone sees the need for more of them, he said. 鈥淪o these kinds of decisions that are really harmful for our country, honestly, might get re-evaluated.鈥�