Last month, the Trump administration made headlines in the design industry for a controversial move on something other than tariffs and a White House ballroom. The news came from the U.S. Department of Education, which announced several changes to how federal student loans would be awarded. Wrapped up in the finer details was a surprise: Architecture—along with nursing and physical therapy—would no longer be considered a “professional” degree.
The reaction from schools, industry organizations and many working architects was swift and condemnatory. The AIA and ACSA both issued statements opposing the change, and a professor emerita from the Yale School of Architecture told The Architect’s Newspaper: “It certainly is consistent with a person who thinks, as evidenced by Trump’s taste, that architecture is nothing more than shopping for gold objects.”
The ruling is part of a broader effort to limit federally administered student loans for graduate degrees. Under the prior system, students could apply for loans that covered their full tuition. Now, those enrolled in “professional” programs will see their loans capped at $50,000; “nonprofessional” programs will be capped at $20,500.
The ruling is subject to a public comment period, and it may be amended before it becomes law. However, if the new designations remain in place, architecture students will face tighter borrowing limits at a time when yearly tuition at top schools is upward of $60,000.
The knock-on effects of the new policy are unpredictable. The changes are intended to fight tuition inflation, a concern on both sides of the political aisle, but it’s not clear whether schools will choose to lower their fees or simply cancel programs that suffer from underenrollment. It’s also possible that students will lean more heavily on private loans—which often come at a higher interest rate—to fund their education. Another likely scenario? Fewer people will choose to go to architecture school.
The impact on designers is also difficult to game out. Though the latest ruling did nothing to change the status of a design degree (which has always been “nonprofessional” in the eyes of the federal government), the lending caps will make financing more difficult for design students, as they will face the same $20,500 limit on a government loan as would-be architects.
David Sprouls, president of the New York School of Interior Design, says that interior designers may stand to gain some ground if the market is less flooded with architects—but that the changes will influence design education as well. “[These new rules] could affect and reduce the number of new architects and increase potential demand for interior designers and the services they provide,” he tells Business of Home. “However, interior design graduate programs are also facing the same tighter borrowing limits, which may reduce enrollment and restrict the pipeline of advanced interior designers. So the overall effect is mixed: [There’s] some potential opportunity for designers, tempered by affordability questions related to education.”
