Degrees of Disposability: Evaluating the Social Work Professional Degree Reclassification

The Department of Education’s professional degree reclassification is not a bureaucratic technicality. It is a structural disinvestment from the professions society depends on most.

The Social Work Professional Degree Reclassification

On January 30, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that, in the words of its authors, simply clarifies which graduate programs qualify for higher federal student loan limits. In bureaucratic language, this is framed as a technical correction. In the language of social work, it is called clinical drift writ large.

Under the proposed rule, eleven degree programs would retain “professional” status for federal lending purposes: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology, and clinical psychology. Social work is not on the list. Neither is nursing, public health, education, occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech-language pathology, counseling, or audiology. For purposes of federal lending policy, the government has determined that these fields do not qualify as professional degree programs.

This decision flows from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law in July 2025, which dismantled the Graduate PLUS loan program and established new borrowing tiers based on program type. Students in “professional” programs may borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 over a lifetime. Students in all other graduate programs are capped at $20,500 annually and $100,000 total. The public comment period closes on March 2, 2026. New loan limits take effect July 1, 2026.

If you are reading this as a social worker, a student, or an educator, I want to be direct with you: this is not a distant policy abstraction. It is a concrete decision about who gets to enter this profession, who gets to stay, and whose communities will be left without services. It is a decision with a racial and gender signature. And it is one that the social work profession largely did not see coming.

“According to preliminary estimates from CSWE and the American Council on Education, the proposed rule would reduce the number of programs eligible for the higher professional loan tier from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600, and eliminate approximately $8 billion in annual federal lending capacity, representing 22 percent of all annual federal loan disbursements.” (CSWE, 2025)

What the Department of Education Rule Actually Does

Before examining the consequences, it is worth being precise about the mechanics. The OBBBA required ED to define “professional student” for purposes of determining loan eligibility. To implement the law, ED convened its Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) committee through a negotiated rulemaking process. On November 6, 2025, that committee reached consensus on a definition. Because consensus was achieved, ED is legally required to publish that exact text as the proposed rule without unilateral modification (Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2025).

The definition the RISE committee adopted requires that a professional degree program “signify completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession,” require “a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor’s degree,” carry a specific four-digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) code, and lead to professional licensure (Congressional Research Service [CRS], 2026). Social work checks all four boxes. The MSW and DSW are required for clinical licensure in every state. They require supervised field placements, rigorous clinical training, and passage of a national licensing exam. And yet social work programs fall outside the four-digit CIP codes the administration chose to include (AcademyHealth, 2025).

It is worth noting that clinical psychology made the list, but only at the doctoral level under specific CIP codes. Master’s-level counseling and psychology programs are largely excluded, a distinction that will matter to readers in those adjacent fields.

The financial consequences are substantial. For a two-year MSW program with tuition alone around $60,000, the annual cap of $20,500 would leave a student with a shortfall of nearly $19,000 per year, before accounting for living expenses or the wages foregone during required unpaid field placements. Unlike many of the eleven designated professional programs, MSW programs require extensive unpaid clinical training, further constraining students’ earning capacity during their education. Preliminary estimates from CSWE and the American Council on Education suggest that 370,000 students across excluded fields will be affected, with more than $8 billion in annual federal loans no longer accessible (CSWE, 2025).

The Evidence the Rule Proceeds Against

Social work education debt is already a serious structural problem. National surveys of MSW graduates between 2017 and 2019 found that Black and African American graduates carried mean total educational debt of approximately $92,000, while Hispanic graduates averaged $79,000, both against a mean starting salary of just $47,100. Average debt attributable specifically to social work education hovered around $49,000, and more than three-quarters of MSW graduates carried loans (Salsberg et al., 2020).

Cross-sectional research has established a consistent pattern: higher social work educational debt is associated with financial strain, longer repayment periods, and concern about remaining in the profession, especially in lower-paying agency settings (Hughes et al., 2018). A multi-institution study of BSW and MSW students found that three-quarters had student loans, many experienced food and housing insecurity during their programs, and a substantial minority received less financial aid than they had anticipated (Unrau et al., 2020).

The behavioral health workforce context makes this worse. HRSA’s national projections anticipate that demand for mental health and substance use disorder social workers will outpace supply by tens of thousands of full-time equivalents by the mid-2030s, with workforce adequacy dropping to as low as 62 to 72 percent in some scenarios (Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSA], 2023). Critically, HRSA’s own behavioral health workforce briefs explicitly identify educational costs, unpaid clinical training, and debt as central constraints on workforce growth. A 2023-2024 survey of state behavioral health authorities found that 43 of 44 responding states reported social work workforce shortages, with MSW-level social workers cited as the single most frequently reported shortage discipline across 41 states (NRI, Inc., 2024). Professional social workers already constitute the largest segment of the mental health workforce in the United States (CSWE, 2025).

A 2024 scoping review of federal behavioral health loan repayment programs found that high educational costs and inadequate wages are major factors preventing recruitment and retention of providers, and that programs like the National Health Service Corps have demonstrably increased numbers of licensed clinical social workers in underserved areas (Last et al., 2024). These are precisely the mechanisms that the new loan structure will undercut. Federal loan repayment programs work partly because they operate on top of a foundation of federal lending access. Remove that foundation, and the pipeline narrows at the entry point.

This is the evidence base that the final negotiated definition does not reflect. Social workers testified during public hearings in August 2025. CSWE submitted formal comments, delivered public remarks during listening sessions, and coordinated with a broad coalition of health profession organizations. The Social Work Leadership Roundtable, uniting NASW, CSWE, ASWB, NABSW, GADE, and others, issued coordinated statements and urged inclusion in the professional degree definition (Society for Social Work and Research, 2026). The committee proceeded anyway.

“41 states are reporting shortages of MSW-level social workers. The federal government’s response is to make the degree harder to afford.” (NRI, Inc., 2024)

This Is Not a Neutral Classification. It Has a Demographic Signature.

The administration has characterized this reclassification as a way of returning to a narrower statutory definition to prevent overborrowing. That framing deserves scrutiny.

The eleven “professional” programs the ED designated are predominantly doctoral-level, predominantly male-majority, and among the highest-earning professions in the country. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a 2024 median annual wage of $151,160 for lawyers and wages at or above $239,200 for physicians (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2025a; BLS, 2025b). Licensed MSW-level social workers earn a median of roughly $67,000 to $77,000 in recent surveys, and new graduates earn an average starting salary under $50,000 (ASWB, 2025). The rule does not restrict overborrowing. It restricts borrowing for lower-earning public-service fields while protecting it for the highest-earning ones.

Meanwhile, the excluded fields are predominantly female and racially diverse. More than 80 percent of MSW students are women (CSWE, 2022). Among new MSW graduates, approximately 22 percent are Black or African American and 14 percent are Hispanic or Latinx; 46 percent are first-generation college graduates, with first-generation rates rising to 57 percent among Black graduates and 73 percent among Hispanic graduates. Black and Hispanic MSW graduates carry significantly higher educational debt than White peers, even after accounting for program type, despite earning similar or lower starting salaries (Salsberg et al., 2020).

The Health Workforce Technical Assistance Center has directly linked rising debt and low pay in social work with difficulties recruiting and retaining students of color, and identifies targeted loan repayment and scholarships as necessary diversity strategies (Health Workforce Technical Assistance Center, 2023). Reducing federal loan access in these fields will not affect all students equally. It will hit hardest those with the least access to family wealth, private loans, or employer tuition support: first-generation students, students of color, and students from rural and low-income communities.

These are the students who become social workers who return to the communities they came from. They serve rural counties with no behavioral health infrastructure, tribal nations, immigrant communities, and low-income urban neighborhoods. When the pipeline contracts, it does not contract evenly. It contracts at the margins where the need is greatest.

A Word on Clinical Drift and What This Moment Reveals

This publication focuses on the epistemic erosion spiral in social work: the profession’s systematic drift from macro practice and structural change toward individual clinical intervention, and the self-reinforcing cycles that result. This federal rulemaking is worth examining through that lens, because it exposes something the profession has not fully reckoned with.

For decades, social work has staked its claim to legitimacy on its proximity to clinical practice. The profession’s advocacy infrastructure has focused heavily on licensure, insurance reimbursement, and clinical recognition. The implicit argument has been: if we are treated like other clinical professions, we will be funded and respected like other clinical professions. This reclassification reveals the limit of that strategy. The federal government looked at the MSW, saw a degree that leads to licensure and clinical practice, and still decided it was not a professional credential by their definition. The clinical legitimacy argument, on its own, was not enough.

Part of the problem is structural. Natow’s (2023) empirical research on ED’s negotiated rulemaking processes finds that they skew toward well-resourced institutional actors, large higher education associations, and policy organizations, with uneven representation of smaller professional constituencies. Consensus rules, which require unanimity, amplify the leverage of the most organized and resource-rich voices at the table. Social work organizations were engaged. They submitted comments, appeared at hearings, and coordinated across the profession. But being at the table is not the same as having leverage at the table.

Research on career trajectories of MSW graduates shows that many who are interested in macro roles, including policy, administration, and community organizing, begin careers in clinical or case management positions, often due to financial pressure (Apgar & Dolan, 2024). Macro roles are disproportionately located in public and nonprofit agencies with lower pay, which amplifies the effect of debt on macro pathway attrition (Lane & Flowers, 2015). High educational debt, research confirms, modestly but significantly increases the likelihood that graduates with pro-social motivations choose private-sector over public and nonprofit roles (Ng & McGinnis Johnson, 2019). If the reclassification further compresses the financial capacity of social work graduates, it will likely deepen the clinical concentration the profession is already experiencing, and further deplete the macro pipeline.

By international standards, this classification makes no sense. In the United Kingdom, use of the title ‘social worker’ without registration is a criminal offense. In the EU, social work is a regulated profession with protected practice rights. The U.S. federal government has decided it is a standard graduate degree.

The International Comparison the Administration Does Not Want to Make

The federal government’s narrow definition of professional degree is not just inconsistent with social work practice. It is inconsistent with the very international frameworks the United States uses in comparative education policy contexts.

Under ISCED 2011, the standard developed by UNESCO and the OECD, master’s-level professional degrees are defined by preparation for regulated practice, complexity of training, and program length, not by earnings potential or a short enumerated list (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2015). Social work, nursing, and education degrees sit at ISCED level 7 and are classified as professional or profession-oriented qualifications in this framework. By the international standard the U.S. uses everywhere else, this classification is political narrowing, not neutral categorization.

The contrast with peer nations is stark. In the United Kingdom, social work is a statutorily regulated profession; use of the title “social worker” without registration through Social Work England or Social Care Wales constitutes a criminal offense, and the qualifying degree is explicitly described as an integrated academic and professional credential requiring at least 200 days of practice learning (Social Care Wales, 2019). In European Union member states, social work is classified as a regulated profession under Directive 2005/36/EC, governing recognition of professional qualifications across borders (European Parliament and Council, 2013). In Canada, provincial colleges of social workers recognize the BSW and MSW as first-level and advanced professional credentials for licensure and protected-title purposes.

The OBBBA’s implementation creates a framework where theology qualifies as a professional degree and social work does not. That outcome is not a function of neutral classification criteria. It is a function of a deliberately narrow list.

---

---

What Needs to Happen Now

The public comment period closes on March 2, 2026. That is days away. Submitting a comment to the Federal Register is the most immediate action any social worker, student, educator, or ally can take. The Social Work Leadership Roundtable has published resources to guide this process. Your comment does not need to be long. It needs to be yours.

Beyond the comment window, this moment calls for a longer reckoning. Several responses are needed in parallel.

The profession needs to take its political infrastructure seriously. The negotiated rulemaking process disadvantaged social work in part because the profession’s organized voice, though present, lacked the institutional leverage that better-resourced professions bring to these processes. Building that leverage is long-term work requiring sustained investment in policy staff, coalition relationships, and legislative engagement.

The profession can not continue to treat financial barriers to entry as a downstream concern. The evidence reviewed here makes clear that educational debt shapes who enters social work, where they practice, and whether they stay. If the profession’s leadership is genuinely committed to a workforce that reflects and serves its communities, financial access must be treated as a first-order justice issue. That means advocating not only for professional degree status, but for stipends, loan repayment programs, funded field placements, and tuition equity at the state and federal level.

Finally, this reclassification should be understood as a test of whether social work’s macro tradition is rhetorical or operational. The profession trains students to analyze power, advocate for structural change, and center the voices of those most affected by policy decisions. The profession now faces a structural challenge that requires exactly those skills on its own behalf.

The federal government has decided, in the absence of compelling counter-pressure, that social work does not qualify as a professional field for lending purposes. The profession gets to decide whether to accept that verdict.

Comment deadline: March 2, 2026. Submit your comment directly at regulations.gov. The Social Work Leadership Roundtable has issued a joint call to action with submission guidance at sswr.org.