The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) recently announced that the “professional” status of “terminal architecture degree programs” is to be eliminated as of July 2026. This action could have significant impact on architecture students enrolled in “professional” degree programs (known as terminal degrees, as they are required in many states to qualify for architectural licensing exams) who receive federally backed loans from the DOE. The decision regarding architecture’s status as a “profession” primarily affects student loan programs; it doesn’t appear to have an effect on architectural registration and licensure. (The U.S. Department of Labor continues to classify architecture as a professional occupation in compiling labor statistics.) This DOE action is focused not just on architects, as several other occupations will be “delisted” as well, among them: nursing, physician assistants, physical therapists, audiologists, accountants, educators, and social workers.

According to the DOE, the crux of this action is student debt. The administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Congress and signed into law this past July, placed new limits on federal student loans for graduate degree programs—which, according to the DOE, account for half of the $1.7 trillion in federal student loans. The department is charged with “identifying ‘professional degree’ programs that will be eligible for higher federal lending limits,” according to the DOE website. “[A] negotiating committee convened by the agency has proposed a consensus definition that designates Medicine (M.D.), Dentistry (D.D.S./D.M.D.), Law (L.L.B./J.D.), and several other high-cost programs as eligible for a $200,000 borrowing limit. Students who pursue a degree in other graduate or doctoral programs would be capped at $100,000 in federal loans.” However, both “professional” and “nonprofessional” degree programs have new caps, which potentially cuts financial aid for all students.  

Under the DOE’s new Repayment Assistance Program, loans for new borrowers will have an annual cap of $20,500 for grad students, while loans to “professional students” will be capped at $50,000. Many students in professional graduate architecture degree programs will need to find other sources for loans to cover the difference. Prior to this change, loan amounts could cover the full cost of degree programs. It should be obvious, but many of the occupations delisted don’t have the earning power of medicine, dentistry, and law. The DOE points out that reducing loan caps for students seeking degrees for these lower-earning professions would reduce an unmanageable student debt burden. But certainly not if students must seek out non-federal loan programs with higher interest rates. The result could mean fewer students from non-affluent backgrounds entering the architectural profession. 

The reaction of architecture organizations to the DOE’s delisting of architecture has been swift. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) stated that it strongly opposes “any proposal or policy that fails to recognize architects as professionals, particularly when designating which degrees qualify for student loan caps.” The AIA points out that the legal designation of a registered architect “is earned through years of rigorous education, extensive professional examinations, and a demanding licensing process. To classify otherwise dismisses the expertise, professional standards, and dedication that define the profession. Lowering the loan cap will reduce the number of architects who can afford to pursue this professional degree and harm American leadership in this field.” The AIA expressed the institute’s desire to engage with policymakers “to ensure that the essential role and professional standing of architects are properly recognized in federal policy. We remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting the integrity and value of the architectural profession.”

The Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), the professional body that represents some 7,000 architectural educators and 40,000 architecture students, notes that DOE’s actions will limit access to student loans, according to ACSA President José L.S. Gámez. In a statement to The Architect’s Newspaper, Gámez said, “Architecture has long been understood to be a profession built upon rigorous education, licensure requirements, and life-long learning that prepare architects for the responsibilities of protecting the health, safety, and welfare not only of their clients but of the public at large.” ACSA’s position is that the DOE’s proposed changes will stifle educational opportunities for would-be architects and “risks our collective public interest. ACSA will advocate for a more considered approach to the needs of the public and reaffirm the importance of professional programs in architecture and design.”

Ed Marley, president of the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (the boards that grant architectural licensure through the states), points out: “The advanced knowledge and skills necessary to provide competent architectural services reinforces it as a ‘profession’ that serves the public’s interest.” Marley notes that while NCARB advocates for multiple paths to licensure, the council “acknowledges that higher education is the most common path to licensure. Limiting federal assistance for students enrolled in architecture programs will impede access for many who desire to serve the public interest by delivering a built environment that improves our physical and mental well-being. Shrinking educational access will do a great disservice to current public interest and to future generations desiring to be architects.”

When I asked former University of Minnesota architecture dean Thomas Fisher for his perspective on DOE’s actions, he saw it as a product of “economic fundamentalism: the belief that the marketplace, rather than experts with knowledge of these disciplines, should determine the value of their degrees.” Limiting the amount of money students can borrow to fund their education makes it more difficult, Fisher contends, for “less-affluent students in need of loans to enter the field, at a time when the demand for most of them has never been higher. It should also remind us of why we have professional education at all. Letting the marketplace decide what a professional should know will likely end up endangering a lot of people, as happened in the past, before we had professional schools. Let the buyer beware.”

Featured image via WorkBC.