On Student Loans and Chicken Little 

Background 

In the classic children’s book “Chicken Little”, a naive young bird is struck by a falling acorn and believes it is a sign that a disaster is about to occur. “The sky is falling!” Little declares, then convinces some of the other barnyard animals to go see the King about the problem. Like many children’s fairy tales, there are lessons in the story that serve us as adults.

In November, the U. S. Department of Education issued a proposed rule that, if implemented, would take effect in July 2026. The rule limits the highest level of federal student loan funding to students in what the DOE defines as graduate “professional degrees”. The fields of study included are: chiropractic, clinical psychology, dentistry, law, medicine (allopathic and osteopathic), optometry, pharmacy, podiatry, theology, and veterinary medicine. These students are eligible for a maximum of $200,000 in federal (meaning taxpayer-financed) loans to pay for their education. Students in all other graduate programs are eligible for a maximum of $100,000 in taxpayer-financed loans. In addition to nursing, other graduate programs not covered in the funding definition of “graduate professional programs” include physical therapists, audiologists, architects, accountants, educators, and social workers, among others.

https://www.nasfaa.org/uploads/documents/RISE_Neg_Reg_Session_2.pdf (pages 55 and 79). 

In a strange coincidence, the regulatory definition of “professional degree” the DOE is using (34 CFR 668.2) is from the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, the same year that the first NP program was initiated (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-668/subpart-A/section-668.2). PA programs were also first introduced in 1965. Thus, neither NP nor PA programs were considered for inclusion when the HEA was written. Why the DOE reverted to a 60-year-old definition of what constitutes a professional degree to control student borrowing is not clear, but evidence indicates that the 1965 definition had not been updated since it was written and thus stood as the current definition. However, the DOE did take input in developing the newly emerging proposal. The addition of clinical psychology as a professional degree was the result (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2025/11/26/what-know-about-definition-professional-degree).

Student loan debt 

The Department of Education borrows money from the Treasury to fund loans. The Treasury, in turn, is largely funded by the American taxpayer. (https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/) In recent years, students in graduate (post-baccalaureate) programs received more than half of all new federal student loans. Graduate student loans now make up half of the outstanding $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio, which is part of the national debt. While a focus on lowering the national debt has substantially increased national revenue in 2025 over 2024, we remain in a deficit spending pattern. The DOE and other federal departments have been charged with addressing this deficit to improve the health of our economy. That still doesn’t explain the reversion to a dated definition, but it is easier to see it as a convenient cut point.

And what about the already high levels of student education debt? Recently, the topic of “forgiving” student loans has been popular. Under this plan, students who chose to take on debt to pay for their education would have their obligation to repay the debt removed. As a result, the amount of those loans returns to the national debt and thus becomes an additional burden on taxpayers (https://www.crfb.org/blogs/what-does-student-debt-cancellation-mean-federal-finances). Incredibly, many people seemed not to realize the financial impact on the country’s economy by not requiring taxpayer-funded debt to be paid back. An example is the columnist who expressed his frustration at why anyone would oppose such a plan, arguing that when forgiven, the debt simply “vanishes” https://open.substack.com/pub/thomhartmann/p/why-do-republicans-oppose-joe-bidens-8f5?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3dzs7n. Fortunately, many citizens recognize through balancing their home checkbooks that moving a debit or credit from one column to another does not cause it to magically evaporate.

What is the cost of graduate nursing education? 

Using data reported by Nursejournal.org from the National Center for Education Statistics, the average cost of tuition and fees for an MSN program was $15,030-$42,880 in 2020. According to the Education Data Initiative, the price of tuition has risen 9.6% since that time, meaning that now it costs roughly $15,656 – $44,667 for a graduate nursing program. https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-year

Of course, tuition costs vary widely based on the student’s choice of university and geographic location, among other factors. In addition, the total cost of education includes living expenses in addition to tuition and fees, especially for students attending school full time. While full time attendance isn’t characteristic of many graduate nursing students, it does affect some students.

Response from Nursing 

The reaction from some individuals and nursing organizations to the proposed rule was swift, and not always accurate. The American Nurses Association (ANA) issued a statement predicting that the rule “jeopardizes efforts to strengthen and expand the U.S. nursing workforce”, and that it would “severely restrict access to critical funding for graduate nursing education”. The president of ANA, Jennifer Mensik Kennedy, was quoted as saying that the rule “threatens the very foundation of patient care”. Kennedy further stated “We urge the Department of Education to recognize nursing as the essential profession it is and ensure access to loan programs that make advanced nursing education possible.” https://www.nursingworld.org/news/news-releases/2025/statement-from-the-american-nurses-association-on-proposed-federal-loan-policy-changes/

A petition circulated by the ANA and endorsed by numerous nursing organizations including the National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties (NONPF), the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN), the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (NAPNAP), the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) and several others is titled “Nursing IS a Professional Degree”. The petition acknowledges that the proposed rule is part of an effort to rein in student loan debt and tuition costs, “However”, it goes on, “it means that post-baccalaureate nursing students would only be eligible for half the amount of federal loans as graduate medical students”.

Representative Joe Courtney (D-Connecticut) posted on X that the new rule will “suffocate” the entry of nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants into our….health care system. Source: Youtube, The Hill, 11/25/25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_l8UKE7vyLs

In a posting from November 20th on the Nurse.org site, “Nursing Excluded as ‘Professional’ Degree by Department of Education” one can find a photo of a sad nurse with her head in her hands next to a photo of a stern looking President Trump. Among other language on this site is the following statement: “In simple terms, becoming an advanced practice nurse just got harder and more expensive. Graduate nursing students, already burdened with high tuition, will lose financial benefits reserved for professional degree programs. This could deter prospective students, especially those from underrepresented or economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Without the ability to feel like they have a future in nursing, some prospective students may opt to choose a different career altogether.” https://nurse.org/news/nursing-excluded-as-professional-degree-dept-of-ed/.

Anecdoctally, nurse educators have also heard academic administrators tell them that their jobs are on the line if nurses cannot access the highest level of funding. These are but a few of the numerous examples of using inflammatory, emotionally charged language and predictions of calamity rather than articulating evidence-based reasons to oppose the DOE decision.

On November 24, the DOE tried to clear up the spread of misinformation by issuing “Myth vs. fact: The definition of professional degrees”. In this document, the DOE pointed out that the proposed change was about loan amounts and not a value judgment about a career choice, that 95% of nurses already borrow below the annual loan limit, and that the decision was not made in isolation, among other points. Still, expressions of objection, offense, and frustration continued. https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/myth-vs-fact-definition-of-professional-degrees

Chicken Little, Shepherds, and Sheep 

There are many things to consider in evaluating the DOE proposal, including how much both nurses and patients are already being taxed, our children’s and grandchildren’s debt burden, and the need for educators to ensure that all graduate nursing programs prepare providers at a level that warrants additional funding, if indeed that is to be the argument. Perhaps it is a good time to pause and consider alternative viewpoints and actionable responses. Some examples include: 

• For years, nurse practitioners have promoted the fact that it is much less expensive to prepare an NP than an MD. Are we now arguing that the cost of a graduate nursing program warrants the same level of funding as medical school? Can we explain why?  
  
• While the average cost of education presented above seems to fall within the recommended loan limits, some programs cost significantly more. But why should taxpayers be required to fund more expensive programs, and how can we better encourage all aspiring university students to not voluntarily take on debt over and above a limit that is reasonable given their job prospects? 
  
• Nurses provide invaluable service to the health of the nation, and we gained significant visibility and prestige for doing so during the COVID pandemic. What can nursing now do to demonstrate its critical presence in supporting the health of both our citizens and our national economy? 
  
• Ongoing high levels of taxpayer funded loans encourage universities to continue raising tuition costs. https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/what-the-department-of-educations-professional-degree-proposal-really-means-for-employers/91270224. Would a better approach from nursing be to support driving down tuition so that more nurses could afford a graduate education without going into debt?

To use another analogy from the animal kingdom, there’s an old saying that has been making the rounds again on social media: “The sheep will spend its entire life fearing the wolf, only to be eaten by the shepherd”. The intent is to point out that we are well attuned to external threats but often overlook the dangers coming from within. While nurse educators, nursing organizations, and individual nurses rally around a common goal of ensuring graduate nursing students receive the largest student loan amounts, we are taking our eyes off some of our internal threats. Threats to our ability to control and ensure the quality and integrity of nursing education, clarifying and marketing our roles as health system leaders focused on the wellness of all citizens, and optimizing our career opportunities by advocating for freedom to practice.

This isn’t the first time we have let a perceived external threat lead us off course. Let’s re-evaluate the need to declare calamity and back off from pronouncing this proposal an existential threat to graduate nursing education. As with Chicken Little, alarmism can be a challenge to credibility. There is much to be done to keep our profession moving forward and upward. Where are the shepherds, and where are the leaders?

Kim Curry

12/22/25