HB 6718 deletes the current cross‑reference to the Code of Federal Regulations and inserts a new statutory definition of “professional degree” into 20 U.S.C. 1087e(a)(4)(C). The new definition says a professional degree is one that both signifies completion of academic requirements to begin practice in a profession (typically where licensure is common) and represents education beyond a bachelor’s degree; it then enumerates a long list of degrees (from Pharm.D. and J.D. to M.B.A., M.Ed., M.S.W., D.P.T., and others) and gives the Secretary authority to add others.
This change is narrow in drafting but broad in consequence: any provision of the Higher Education Act or related Title IV rules that looks to the statutory term “professional degree” will now use this list and the Secretary’s determinations rather than the prior regulatory definition. That can change program classifications, reporting, and student eligibility where “professional degree” is a statutory trigger, and it leaves open administrative and legal questions about which programs qualify.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill removes the current regulatory cross‑reference and creates a new statutory definition of “professional degree” that combines a functional test (prepares for beginning professional practice and exceeds bachelor’s-level education) with an explicit list of degrees and a catch‑all allowing the Secretary to add others. It codifies those changes at 20 U.S.C. 1087e(a)(4)(C).
Who It Affects
Institutions that offer graduate and professional programs (law, medicine, business, education, allied health, social work, etc.), students enrolled in those programs, and the Department of Education because the definition will determine how multiple HEA provisions apply. Any Title IV administration or compliance task that references “professional degree” will be affected.
Why It Matters
A statutory list resets the baseline for program classification across HEA provisions rather than relying on an existing regulatory definition, reducing ambiguity in some places while creating new questions about borderline programs, program naming, and administrative burden for the Department and institutions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB 6718 is a narrowly framed amendment: it changes how the Higher Education Act defines “professional degree.” Today that term is tied to a regulatory definition in 34 C.F.R. § 668.2; the bill strikes that tie and replaces it with a statutory test plus an explicit list of degrees. The test has two parts: the degree must (1) indicate completion of the academic requirements needed to begin practice in a profession where licensure is commonly required, and (2) represent education beyond the bachelor’s degree.
The bill then spells out a long list of specific degrees that meet the test.
The enumerated list ranges from traditionally recognized professional doctorates (M.D., D.O., D.D.S./D.M.D., D.V.M., Pharm.D., O.D., D.P.M.) and clinical doctorates (D.P.T., Psy.D., Au.D.) to a wide set of master’s and terminal degrees (M.B.A., M.B.A./D.B.A., M.Ed., M.S.W., M.P.H., M.Arch., M.S.N., D.N.P., etc.). It explicitly includes law degrees (J.D. and L.L.B.), several ministry and theology degrees, and gives the Secretary a residual authority to designate “any other degree” that fits the statutory test.
That combination of a statutory test, a long enumerated list, and an open‑ended catch‑all is the bill’s core drafting approach.Because many HEA provisions (and implementing regulations) use the phrase “professional degree” as a statutory hook — for example, to set loan limits, define certain enrollment categories, or trigger different repayment or deferment rules — changing the statutory definition means those references will now resolve to the new text. The bill does not itself change loan amounts, repayment rules, accreditation standards, or licensure requirements; it changes the label that the law applies.
Practically, institutions and the Department will need to map existing programs to the new statutory list and the Secretary’s future determinations, and stakeholders may litigate borderline cases where program content differs from program title.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 20 U.S.C. 1087e(a)(4)(C) by deleting the cross‑reference to 34 C.F.R. § 668.2 and inserting a new statutory definition of “professional degree.”, The new statutory test requires that a professional degree both prepares for beginning professional practice (where licensure is commonly required) and exceeds the education level of a bachelor’s degree, with final qualification determined by the Secretary.
HB 6718 expressly lists degrees that qualify as professional degrees, including doctorates (M.D.
D.O.
D.D.S./D.M.D.
D.V.M.
Pharm.D.), clinical and allied health doctorates (D.P.T.
Au.D.
Psy.D.), law (J.D./L.L.B.), and many master’s and terminal degrees such as M.B.A.
M.Ed.
M.S.W.
M.P.H.
M.S.N.
and M.Arch.
The statute gives the Secretary of Education explicit discretion to designate any other degree as a professional degree if it meets the two‑part test, creating a regulatory‑decision point rather than leaving the list purely to statutory enumeration.
Because the change is to the statutory definition, every HEA provision that uses the term “professional degree” will now be interpreted against this list and the Secretary’s future determinations rather than the prior regulatory definition.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the bill’s citation as the “Professional Student Degree Act.” This is a formal label only and has no substantive legal effect; it serves to identify the amendment in statutory codification and should appear in any enacted bill text and subsequent references.
Amend 20 U.S.C. 1087e(a)(4)(C)
Identifies the precise codification point in the Higher Education Act for the change. Anyone tracking statutory cross‑references or updating statutory annotation should note this exact citation: the amendment operates by adding a new clause (iii) to paragraph (4)(C) of subsection (a) of section 1087e.
Remove regulatory cross‑reference
Strikes the language that ties the statutory term to the definition ‘as defined under section 668.2 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations.’ That deletion severs the existing dependence on the regulatory definition and transfers the definitional authority into the statute itself and to the Secretary through an explicit delegatory clause.
Two‑part statutory test for professional degree
Adds a functional test: a professional degree must (1) signify completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a profession commonly requiring licensure, and (2) represent education beyond the bachelor’s degree. This language frames the legal standard the Secretary will apply when evaluating programs not listed by name.
Enumerated list and catch‑all
Provides an explicit, non‑exhaustive list of degrees that qualify (from clinical doctorates and health professions to master’s in business, education, and allied disciplines) and finishes with a catch‑all allowing the Secretary to add ‘any other degree’ that meets the statutory test. That structure both clarifies many common categories and preserves administrative flexibility.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Students enrolled in degrees explicitly listed (e.g., J.D., M.D., Pharm.D., D.P.T., M.B.A., M.Ed., M.S.W.): they gain clearer statutory status for their credential across any HEA provision that references “professional degree,” reducing uncertainty about program classification.
- Institutions and graduate schools that operate programs on the enumerated list: clearer statutory labeling may simplify Title IV reporting and compliance because a specified degree title will presumptively satisfy the statute’s label (subject to Secretary determinations).
- Programs that have sought professional status (e.g., certain health and allied health master’s programs): the statutory list makes program inclusion more visible and may improve predictability for curriculum design and marketing when professional‑degree status matters.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Department of Education: the Department must operationalize the new test and exercise its discretion to add degrees, update guidance, and re‑map existing program inventories, which requires staff time and potentially new rulemaking or guidance documents.
- Colleges and universities with borderline or non‑listed programs: programs that previously were treated as professional degrees under the regulatory definition but are not on the statutory list may face reclassification, compliance uncertainty, and administrative work to secure Secretary recognition.
- Title IV administrators and loan servicers: any reclassification could trigger changes in student eligibility, reporting, or cohort calculations, requiring systems updates and additional compliance monitoring; institutions may incur costs defending program designations or seeking determinations from the Department.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two competing objectives: creating clearer, statutory categories for ‘professional degree’ to give students and institutions predictability, versus preserving administrative flexibility for the Secretary to account for program diversity; granting that flexibility risks inconsistent treatment, administrative burden, and program rebranding gamesmanship.
HB 6718 trades a single, codified regulatory definition for a hybrid statutory approach: a two‑part test plus a long enumerated list and a Secretary discretion clause. That design reduces some kinds of ambiguity by naming many familiar degrees, but it creates three practical problems.
First, program titles do not always map cleanly to curricular content; a degree called an M.A. at one institution may be vocational and licensure‑oriented, while at another it may be research‑focused. The Secretary’s determinations will therefore become the battleground for borderline cases, increasing administrative workload and likely prompting litigation over particular program classifications.
Second, the list includes several generic degree titles (M.A., M.S., M.Ed., M.B.A.) that are used across a spectrum of academic and professional programs. That raises the risk of gaming—institutions could rebrand programs to fit the statutory list without substantive curricular change—or conversely, programs that deserve professional classification could be excluded if they lack the precise title.
Finally, because the bill changes the statutory hook rather than specific HEA benefits or limits, its downstream effects (for example, how loan limits, deferment categories, or repayment timing apply) are indirect and contingent: implementation choices by the Department and subsequent regulatory adjustments will determine the material impact, not the statute alone.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.