AccessLex Institute Submits Comments to Education Department on Implementing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Tamy Abernathy
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Postsecondary Education
400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20202

Re: Intent To Receive Public Feedback for the Development of Proposed Regulations and Establish Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

Docket Number: ED-2025-OPE-0151

Dear Ms. Abernathy:

I am writing on behalf of AccessLex Institute^® in response to the July 25, 2025 Federal Register notice soliciting comments on implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), including changes to federal student loan programs and institutional and programmatic accountability. The following comments focus on AccessLex Institute’s recommendations on loan program changes, repayment plans, accountability, and data.

AccessLex Institute, in partnership with its nearly 200 nonprofit and state-affiliated ABA-approved member law schools, has been committed to improving access to legal education and to maximizing the affordability and value of a law degree since 1983. We advocate for policies that make legal education work better for students and society alike; conduct research on the most critical issues facing legal education today; seek to expand access to legal education for underrepresented students through research, grantmaking, data analysis, and the dissemination of information and resources; and aim to increase first-time bar exam passage nationwide.

Definition of Graduate v. Professional Degree

OBBBA defines “graduate student” as a student enrolled in a program of study that awards a graduate credential (other than a professional degree) upon completion of the program. The bill defines “professional student” as a student enrolled in a program of study that awards a professional degree (as defined under section 668.2 of title 34, Code of Federal Regulations {34 CFR 668.2}) upon completion of the program. According to 34 CFR 668.2, a professional degree is:

A degree that signifies both completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession and a level of professional skill beyond that normally required for a bachelor's degree. Professional licensure is also generally required. Examples of a professional degree include but are not limited to Pharmacy (Pharm.D.), Dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.), Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.), Chiropractic (D.C. or D.C.M.), Law (L.L.B. or J.D.), Medicine (M.D.), Optometry (O.D.), Osteopathic Medicine (D.O.), Podiatry (D.P.M., D.P., or Pod.D.), and Theology (M.Div., or M.H.L.). 

While this distinction has had limited practical impact in the past, it now carries significant financial implications for students due to the different loan limits applied to graduate and professional degrees mandated by OBBBA. We believe that additional clarity around which degrees fall into each category is needed to avoid unnecessary confusion for both students and institutions as they navigate the financial aid process.

Therefore, we urge the Education Department (ED) to provide clear and comprehensive guidance on the classification of degrees under these definitions. This guidance should include a definitive list of degrees considered professional, clarification on borderline cases, and a transparent and efficient process for institutions to seek classification determinations. In the alternative, ED could tie “professional” status to the program being accredited by an approved programmatic accreditor with proven expertise and experience. Doing so will ensure that students and schools can accurately assess financial aid eligibility and plan accordingly.

Classification of LL.M. Degree and Joint J.D. Programs

As stated above, it is critical to clarify the definition of “professional student” under federal student aid regulations. Specifically, we urge the Department to explicitly include students pursuing Master of Laws (LL.M.) degrees and joint Juris Doctor (J.D.) programs — such as J.D./M.B.A., J.D./M.P.H., and similar interdisciplinary degrees — within the definition of professional student for the purposes of federal loan limits.

Unlike traditional master’s degrees, which require only a bachelor’s degree for admission, LL.M. programs require applicants to hold a J.D., which is defined as a professional degree under 34 CFR 668.2. These programs provide advanced legal training and specialization in areas such as tax and health, preparing students for highly technical roles within the legal profession. Similarly, joint degree programs equip future lawyers with interdisciplinary expertise in fields like business and public health that are urgently needed in today’s complex legal landscape.

What’s more, OBBBA implicitly acknowledges that students pursuing advanced professional degrees, such as law and medicine, face higher educational costs. However, the current regulatory definition does not clearly extend to LL.M. or joint degree students, despite the rigorous academic and professional demands these programs entail. If LL.M. and joint J.D. degree students are not recognized as professional students for loan limit purposes, they may be forced to rely on high-interest private loans or be forced to forgo these valuable credentials altogether. This outcome would restrict access to critical areas of legal practice and undermine the adaptability of the legal profession.

Repaid Loans and Lifetime Limits

Under current policy, federal lifetime loan limits aggregate all federal student loan borrowing — including amounts that have already been repaid, in full or in part, for prior graduate or professional study. This approach, which continues to be taken in OBBBA, unnecessarily penalizes individuals who have demonstrated financial responsibility and a commitment to lifelong learning, eliminating the value that will accrue to the country more broadly from a more educated populace.

For example, a student who completed a master’s degree in public health, fully repaid their loans, and later decides to pursue a law degree to advance public health policy could be denied access to sufficient federal aid. Despite having honored their previous obligations, their past borrowing would still count against their lifetime limit, potentially making it impossible to finance their legal education without resorting to costly private loans or abandoning their plans altogether.

This framework acts to discourage ambition, successful repayment, and career reinvention — traits that should be celebrated and supported. Excluding repaid loans from the lifetime borrowing calculation would reward responsible borrowers and promote access to advanced education for those seeking to contribute meaningfully across multiple disciplines. Thus, we recommended that ED revise its policy to exclude previously repaid loans from lifetime limits.

Loan Proration

OBBBA requires institutions to prorate the amount of federal student loans available to borrowers based on the number of credit hours in which they are enrolled. While this approach may appear to align loan availability with academic class load, it fails to account for the full scope of student’s financial need, particularly for part-time students.

Although part-time students may incur lower tuition costs than their full-time counterparts, their living expenses — such as rent, food, transportation, and child care — remain largely unchanged. These fixed costs are not prorated based on enrollment status and can pose significant financial burdens, especially for students who are managing other responsibilities alongside their education.

As ED develops a schedule of reductions to guide institutions in determining loan eligibility for less than full-time students, it is essential that this schedule reflects the reality of student living expenses. We recommend that ED incorporate a methodology that ensures part-time students can access sufficient loan funds to cover their full cost of attendance, including non-tuition expenses. Doing so will support student success across differing enrollment patterns.

Repayment Plans

AccessLex Institute has long supported efforts to streamline the number of repayment plans available to federal student loan borrowers. However, the transition period following the enactment of OBBBA is likely to introduce new complexities for borrowers, particularly as existing Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) Plans are phased out and replaced by new options. To ensure a seamless transition, ED must prioritize clear and timely communication with borrowers and provide robust support throughout the process.

In addition, ED must support loan servicers who play a critical role in this effort, as they are often the first point of contact for borrowers seeking guidance on repayment options. Servicers must be adequately funded and equipped to deliver comprehensive customer service to borrowers, including individualized counseling and assistance navigating plan changes. ED should work with their colleagues at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to request sufficient federal funding from Congress to ensure that loan servicers are equipped to meet the needs of student loan borrowers, thus increasing the likelihood of successful repayment.

Finally, the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) must be fully funded and appropriately staffed to oversee this transition effectively. Improved coordination and communication between FSA and loan servicers will be essential to minimize borrower confusion and prevent disruptions in repayment. Again, ED should coordinate with OMB to request funding from Congress that is adequate to manage the transition, communication efforts, technological needs, and loan servicer contracts and relationships.

Preferred Lender List Regulations

The elimination of the Grad PLUS Loan Program and implementation of lower loan limits under OBBBA will result in many graduate and professional students being required to access loan funding from private lenders to fully finance their education. This bifurcation of loan types will necessitate that borrowers receive robust loan counseling as well as broader financial education to help them understand the key differences between federal and private student loans, including repayment terms, forgiveness options, and interest rates. As noted above, changes to repayment plans will also bring increased complexity and confusion in the short term that would be ameliorated by more and better loan counseling.

However, current Preferred Lender List regulations, which outline how schools must disclose their relationship with lenders, have had a chilling effect on schools, making them afraid to let student lenders on campus to provide general loan counseling for fear of running afoul of the regulations. This unintended consequence limits students’ access to critical financial information at a time when they need it most.

We recommend that ED amend the Preferred Lender List regulations and clarify guidance to make it clear that student lenders are allowed on campus to provide general loan and financial counseling and education to students. This should include broad loan counseling that touches on general concepts, changes to the federal student loan and repayment programs, or the borrower’s specific situation. And as a strong advocate for the value and mission driven services offered over the decades to student borrowers by nonprofit and state-based lenders and other nonprofit organizations (which include entities like AccessLex Institute), we would support limitations in the regulations to mitigate the risks that profits and shareholder value concerns negatively impact the value and utility of such counseling. In sum, we ask for clear guidance from ED to empower institutions and their financial aid experts to support their students’ financial decision-making without fear of regulatory repercussions.

Accountability

OBBBA introduces a new metric for determining institutional eligibility to participate in Title IV programs: The post-graduation earnings of a graduate or professional student. Specifically, if a former student’s median earnings four years after graduation fall below those of working adults aged 25-34 with only a bachelor’s degree for two of the three preceding years when the data was calculated, the institution risks losing access to federal student aid.

We support efforts to ensure that federal investments in higher education yield meaningful outcomes for students but ask that ED provide greater clarity to schools about reporting requirements, disclosures, and timelines. This is particularly important since this new accountability framework is in addition to the existing requirements under Gainful Employment and Financial Value Transparency rules, which use different metrics to assess value: Debt-to-earnings rate and earnings premium test. Without clear guidance, schools may have trouble navigating the myriad responsibilities they have under the similar, but different, accountability metrics.

Data Collection

As the federal government implements the sweeping changes introduced by OBBBA, it is essential that ED prioritize robust data collection efforts to assess how the changes in the law impact students. For example, comprehensive data will be critical to understanding how the new loan limits for graduate and professional students affect access to advanced education.

The need for data will also extend beyond federal student loan programs. With many students now expected to rely on private loans to finance their degrees, ED must also consider how it will track, collect, and disseminate information about private borrowing. For example, will private loan data be incorporated into the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS)?

We are also concerned that recent reductions in force at ED may strain its capacity to collect and analyze this new data. While state agencies and private organizations may attempt to fill the gap, they lack the scale, infrastructure, and standardization necessary to do so efficiently and comprehensively. Only the federal government has the capacity and experience to collect, synthesize, and disseminate this amount of data at the level required to inform national policy.

Moreover, collecting this data at the national level results in standardized data, allowing for better analysis and understanding of what’s happening across both the country and in specific states. If left to states or private entities alone, we risk fragmented and incompatible data that fails to account for student mobility across state lines or the growth of virtual learning environments, leaving meaningful gaps in what we know about how students pay for graduate and professional education. Without robust, standardized data, students, schools, and policymakers will be left to make decisions in the dark.

Thank you for considering our comments on the implementation of OBBBA. If you have any questions or would like additional information, you can reach me at [email protected]. You can also contact Nancy Conneely, Vice President of Policy, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Christopher P. Chapman
President and Chief Executive Officer
AccessLex Institute^®