The Department of Education confirmed Monday that its second week of rule making over student loans is a go starting Nov. 3, regardless of whether there is a resolution in sight for the government shutdown.

Once again, the main issue on the table for the advisory committee will be which types of postbaccalaureate programs should qualify for which of the two recently instituted graduate loan caps.

Under Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, students in professional programs can borrow up to $200,000 to pay for their degrees, though they’ll be limited to $50,000 a year. Loans for other graduate programs are capped at $100,000 over all and $20,500 a year. Regulating what types of programs fall in each category is just one of the many tasks outlined for ED in the sweeping budget bill, but experts said the loan caps are likely to be one of the most consequential changes, as they could force hundreds of thousands of borrowers into the private loan market.

President Trump and Republicans on the Hill hope the loan limits and privatization process will force graduate schools to lower the cost of attendance. But many higher education and workforce development advocates say that in certain high-demand, high-cost programs like health care, there is little fat left to trim. As a result, they say, college costs will stay the same, but the loans will be less accessible and fewer students will enroll in high-demand programs.

This would particularly be the case if the department sticks with its proposal, which only designates 10 degree programs—including law, pharmacy and dentistry—as professional, a number of sources said.

“At least a half a dozen, if not more, doctoral licensure programs in physical and mental health will be greatly impacted, and the pipeline in those programs will shrink,” said Andy Vaughn, the president of a for-profit college with a heavy focus on clinical psychology and a member of the advisory committee. And that’s a problem because “these are all programs that have critical shortages already.”

But ED has already provided at least one of its own alternate plans, and most committee members are optimistic that another option proposed by the negotiator representing taxpayers and public interest will gain traction in negotiating week two. That plan would open up the definition to more health care–related degree programs.

Clare McCann, a former department staffer during the Biden administration who is now the managing director of the Postsecondary Education & Economics Research Center at American University, said that while it’s hard to know exactly where the department stands on the suggestions of Vaughn and others, their likely priority is reaching consensus.

“The more [ED] continues to hear from [committee members] that they’d like to see a different approach taken, the more the department will need to at least engage in those conversations,” she said. “I’m not sure I have an ideal definition, but I think the best thing that negotiators can do is come up with something that is sustainable, legally defensible and that provides people with the levels of debt they need and while giving clarity to students and institutions who are going to be affected by these changes almost immediately.”

The Education Department released its updated proposals for the second round of talks late Monday evening. Officials reverted to their original plan for a narrow list of professional programs.

Jeffrey Andrade, the deputy assistant secretary for policy, planning and innovation, said in a statement that the department “is looking forward to the second round of negotiated rulemaking next week” and celebrated the progress made at the beginning of the month. The department also noted that staffers have reviewed all new proposals and said they will be discussed next week.

2 Options on the Table

When the committee first began negotiations over the definition in early October, members sparred with the department over its exhaustive 10-program list. And while much of the debate happened behind closed doors, department officials had responded by the end of the week to the concerns of members like Vaughn and offered a slight compromise on the record.

This proposal largely maintained ED’s original definition—but with one major change. For one year only, any program that meets the statutory standards and has historically been advertised as leading to professional licensure would qualify for the higher loan cap. After that, only the 10 selected programs would be eligible.

Stakeholders from across the political spectrum largely criticized this idea, saying that even if it’s only for a year, the department’s plan opens the doors wide for a whole swath of programs. Some also added that when the department does switch to the more restrictive definition, it could create unnecessary confusion for borrowers and institutions.

“This one-year interim program that ED has proposed just seems a little bit odd,” said Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. “My instinct is that we should pick one definition and stick to it for the long haul so that institutions have certainty around which programs are going to get access to which loan limits.”

Ben Cecil, a senior education policy adviser at Third Way, a center-left think tank, added that the department’s interim definition could get “very complicated very quickly.” Cecil has advocated for a more restrictive definition of “professional.”

He said that if he were a negotiator, he would prefer the plan from committee member Alex Holt, a senior adviser for higher ed at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Under Holt’s plan, the list would be expanded to include any program that requires at least 80 credit hours for completion and uses the same first two CIP code digits as an existing program on the department’s list, with the exception being clinical psychology. (A CIP code, otherwise known as the Classification of Instructional Programs, is part of an organizational system used by ED to group similar academic programs.) Examples include physician assistant, physical therapy and occupational therapy programs.

“Over all, I think [Holt’s plan] is more straightforward and allows for some variation, while also not opening the door too widely,” he said.

At least six members on the nine-person advisory panel support Holt’s proposal, and some familiar with the committee’s discussions say more back the plan.

Jenna Colvin, president of the Georgia Independent College Association and the committee member representing private nonprofits, said Holt’s proposal is “deliberately focused” and addresses Congress’s concerns about college costs while also supporting workforce needs.

“It’s not a perfect solution—some students seeking credentials for leadership roles in public service or the helping professions may still fall outside the lines,” she said. “But it reflects a genuine effort to reach consensus in a complex policy environment.”

Vaughn, the member representing for-profit institutions, said that while the department’s proposed compromise is preferred because it gives colleges a bit more time to prepare, it would just delay the inevitable—key programs would shut down and critical jobs would go unfilled. Holt’s plan, he said, creates a more sustainable long-term solution.

“I think the most important point of that proposal, which should show good faith to the department,” Vaughn added, “is that it’s coming from the taxpayer group, the most fiscally conservative group in the room … They wouldn’t have submitted it had it gone against the intent of the president and Congress for cuts in higher ed funding.”

Aside from Monday’s email, committee members say they’ve heard little from ED. But Holt remains hopeful.

“I think we’re really close to achieving consensus. And I think everybody, all the negotiators, genuinely want to reach it. So I’m very optimistic,” he said.