Reflecting on my time in the NSIDP, my satisfaction has unfortunately been overshadowed by profound structural and systemic challenges, particularly concerning the process of securing a faculty mentor, which ultimately led to the current recommendation for my academic disqualification. While I successfully navigated the rigorous coursework, including passing the Written Qualifying Exams with High Pass marks in Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience, this academic achievement stands in stark contrast to the difficulties encountered in the lab rotation and mentor selection process.
My primary source of dissatisfaction stems from the opaqueness and lack of consistent support within the rotation system. Despite completing five rotations and diligently applying my extensive prior research experience (including over two years of full-time functional genomics work at UCSF leading to high-impact publications), the process felt like navigating a “hidden curriculum.” Expectations from potential PIs were often unclear, and direct, constructive feedback explaining why a rotation would not convert into a mentorship commitment was frequently absent or relayed indirectly through program administration. This created an environment of uncertainty and escalating stress, significantly exacerbated by my documented ADHD, for which I was unaware that accommodations could extend beyond coursework to the rotation process itself until very late in the game.
There appeared to be a recurring ambiguity regarding PI availability, with “funding, space, or mentorship bandwidth limitations” cited frequently, often after a rotation was completed. The financial responsibilities for PIs taking on NSIDP students (e.g., the cost of a GSR, which can be comparable to a postdoc but with greater mentorship demands) were not transparently managed from the student’s perspective, nor did it seem there were robust mechanisms or sufficient program-level resources to bridge such gaps when a good scientific match existed. The interdepartmental nature of NSIDP, while a strength in theory, seemed to translate into a diffusion of responsibility when it came to PI commitment, as the program itself cannot compel faculty from various departments to take students. This puts an undue burden on students to not only find a scientific fit but also a PI willing and able to navigate these often-unstated financial and logistical hurdles.
Furthermore, the demanding nature of core coursework, such as neuroanatomy which has historically posed challenges for many students, running concurrently with the high-stakes pressure of lab rotations, contributed to an environment where it was difficult to thrive and truly demonstrate one’s potential in the lab setting. The lack of an integrated M.S. option within NSIDP also represents a structural inflexibility, offering no intermediate credential or smoother exit pathway for students who, for various reasons including systemic program issues, may not secure a PhD mentor within the prescribed timeframe.
Overall, while individual faculty members were often supportive, the systemic aspects of mentor selection, communication, financial transparency, and programmatic flexibility have been sources of significant dissatisfaction and, I believe, were primary contributors to my current circumstances.
My overall satisfaction with the NSIDP has been significantly impacted by systemic challenges within the lab rotation and mentor selection process, which felt opaque and lacked consistent, direct feedback, creating substantial uncertainty. While I found aspects of the coursework intellectually stimulating and successfully passed my Written Qualifying Exams, this was unfortunately overshadowed by the difficulties in securing a permanent research home due to unclear PI availability, particularly regarding funding and space, and a perceived lack of robust program-level mechanisms to bridge these gaps when a good scientific fit existed. The absence of a structured M.S. pathway within NSIDP also contributed to my dissatisfaction, as it limited options when the PhD mentor search became protracted.
To increase student satisfaction and mitigate the recurrence of situations like mine, I propose the following changes and additions to the NSIDP:
Overhaul the Rotation and Mentor Selection Process:
Increase Financial Transparency and Support Mechanisms:
Improve Communication and Demystify the “Hidden Curriculum”:
Enhance Program Structure and Curricular Flexibility:
Formalized Mentorship Training for PIs:
By addressing these structural, financial, and communication challenges, NSIDP can create a more transparent, supportive, and equitable environment where students have a greater opportunity to thrive and successfully identify a mentor who aligns with their research passions and career aspirations.
To enhance student satisfaction and success, I recommend implementing more transparent and structured protocols for lab rotations and mentor selection, including standardized, direct PI feedback mechanisms and clearer upfront communication from PIs regarding their capacity to take students. Greater program-level intervention and support, possibly through active “matchmaking” or bridge funding initiatives, could assist students in securing placements. Furthermore, formally integrating an optional M.S. degree track within NSIDP would provide a valuable alternative pathway and acknowledge student achievements if PhD continuation is not viable, thereby offering a crucial safety net and improving overall program flexibility and support.
While individual staff members were often well-intentioned and responsive to direct inquiries, my experience highlighted a systemic issue where crucial feedback regarding PI decisions about lab rotations was frequently communicated indirectly, often through program administration rather than directly from the PIs. This created a buffer that hindered my ability to understand specific concerns or areas for improvement from the PIs' perspectives. A more structured process encouraging or requiring direct, documented feedback from faculty to students after each rotation would be substantially more beneficial for student development and decision-making.
My experience with NSIDP faculty and staff has been mixed and, particularly as my situation progressed, became a significant source of frustration due to what I perceived as systemic communication issues and a lack of proactive, individualized support. While some initial interactions with administrative staff were helpful for procedural matters, a pattern emerged where critical information, especially concerning the outcomes of lab rotations and PIs’ decisions not to offer a position, was often relayed indirectly, sometimes through the Program Chair or Student Affairs Officer, rather than through direct, substantive conversations with the PIs themselves. This indirectness created a barrier to understanding the precise reasons for a lack of fit or a PI’s specific concerns, making it incredibly difficult to learn and adapt effectively for subsequent rotations. There were instances where I felt I was doing all I could to stay afloat and meet expectations, yet the guidance I received in return was generic, dismissive, or, in at least one profoundly unsettling instance, bordered on personal critique rather than constructive professional advice regarding my research capabilities or fit. This impersonal and sometimes seemingly disengaged approach, especially when facing the escalating crisis of not securing a mentor, made me feel more like a problem to be managed than a student to be genuinely supported and advocated for. It appeared that the program’s structure did not empower or perhaps require faculty within the NSIDP leadership to engage deeply with the specific, nuanced challenges individual students might face in navigating the complex interdepartmental PI landscape, especially when systemic issues like PI funding or lab capacity were clearly at play. The overall impression was one where the program’s administrative and faculty oversight mechanisms seemed more geared towards enforcing procedural timelines rather than actively facilitating successful mentor matches or addressing the underlying barriers individual students, including myself with documented ADHD, were encountering.
My interactions with NSIDP faculty leadership and administrative staff, particularly as I navigated the increasingly critical challenge of securing a faculty mentor, evolved from initially procedural and somewhat supportive to feeling profoundly impersonal, disengaged, and at times, deeply undermining. A persistent and detrimental pattern was the indirect relay of crucial information. For instance, feedback from PIs after rotations, or their ultimate decisions not to offer a lab position, were frequently communicated second-hand through the Program Chair or Student Affairs Officer. This practice systematically stripped the feedback of its nuance and context, preventing me from understanding the PIs' specific reasoning or concerns directly. Such indirect communication made it exceedingly difficult to learn from each rotation, adapt my approach, or address any misperceptions effectively. It fostered an environment of opacity and left me feeling like I was shadowboxing with undisclosed criteria.
As my situation became more precarious, the engagement from program leadership felt less like proactive support and more like crisis management with a predetermined trajectory. Meetings often resulted in generic advice or reiterations of procedural expectations, rather than a deep, collaborative dive into the specific barriers I was facing – be they PI funding, lab capacity, or potential misalignments that could have been addressed with more direct intervention. There were instances where comments from program leadership felt dismissive of my efforts and the genuine challenges I was encountering, including one particularly memorable and inappropriate remark about “internalized self-loathing” during a discussion about my difficulties, and another where a PI’s highly questionable assessment of my PhD capability was relayed to me as if it were objective fact. These interactions did not feel like genuine attempts to understand or support a student in distress, but rather, at times, seemed to reflect a program leadership more concerned with administrative closure or perhaps its own image than with fostering an individual student’s success or well-being. It’s crucial for NSIDP faculty and staff, especially those in leadership and advising roles, to receive training and be held accountable for providing direct, empathetic, and constructively engaged support, particularly for students navigating the known systemic complexities of the interdepartmental mentor search. The current system appears to insulate PIs from difficult conversations and leaves students adrift, relying on an administrative layer that may not be equipped or empowered to resolve the core issues of lab placement.
The program’s academic components, such as seminars and the emphasis on scholarly work leading to qualifying exams, were generally of high quality and I was able to meet these expectations. However, the intense pressure to secure a lab rotation and eventual mentor often overshadowed the ability to fully engage with or benefit from these other academic activities as much as one might have hoped, as the uncertainty of one’s primary research placement became an all-consuming concern.
While I successfully met formal academic requirements such as the Written Qualifying Exams (achieving High Pass marks), the broader programmatic elements like regular seminars and meetings often felt disconnected from the most pressing challenge: securing a stable research mentorship. The inherent value of such academic activities is clear, but their impact was significantly diluted by the overwhelming and persistent stress of the mentor search. It was difficult to fully engage with seminar content or leverage program meetings for genuine networking or problem-solving when the fundamental question of my continuation in a lab, and thus the program, remained unresolved quarter after quarter. While the NSIDP curriculum ensures exposure to a breadth of neuroscience, the structure of program meetings and seminars did not seem to provide a dedicated or effective forum for openly discussing or addressing the systemic challenges students like myself were facing in the rotation process—issues like PI funding ambiguities, inconsistent feedback, or the difficulties of interdepartmental lab placements. More integrated meetings, perhaps small group sessions with faculty explicitly designed to troubleshoot rotation strategies or discuss the “hidden curriculum” of finding a mentor, could have been far more beneficial. As for publications, my prior productivity at UCSF demonstrates my capability and commitment to scholarly output, but the ability to contribute to new publications within NSIDP was entirely contingent on finding a lab, a barrier I could not overcome due to the issues already detailed. The program’s emphasis on milestones like publications is appropriate, but it must be coupled with robust support to ensure students are in a position to achieve them.
While I diligently fulfilled the academic requirements of the NSIDP, including the successful completion of my Written Qualifying Exams with High Pass distinction in two core areas, my experience with other programmatic elements like seminars, meetings, and the pursuit of publications was profoundly shaped and ultimately hampered by the overarching and unresolved crisis of securing a faculty mentor. The intellectual value of seminars and colloquia, or the potential for program meetings to foster a sense of community and shared learning, was consistently overshadowed by the pressing anxiety and uncertainty of my research future. It became nearly impossible to fully immerse myself in these academic activities when the very foundation of my PhD – a stable lab environment – was non-existent.
Program-organized meetings, in my experience, did not adequately serve as a forum to address the significant, systemic challenges that students like myself were encountering in the mentor selection process. There was a palpable disconnect between the formal academic programming and the practical, often harsh, realities of navigating the interdepartmental PI landscape, especially concerning PI availability, funding, and commitment. Opportunities were missed to use these gatherings to openly discuss these “hidden curriculum” aspects, share collective wisdom, or for program leadership to transparently address known bottlenecks in mentor placement. Instead, these events often felt like perfunctory obligations.
Regarding publications, my track record prior to NSIDP, including co-authorship on high-impact papers from my time at UCSF, clearly demonstrates my capability and commitment to scholarly output. I entered the NSIDP eager to continue contributing at this level. However, the inability to secure a consistent research environment for nearly two years directly precluded any meaningful progress on new research projects that would lead to publications or conference presentations within the NSIDP context. This lack of research continuity and output was not a reflection of my scientific ability or drive, but a direct consequence of the program’s structural failure to facilitate a timely and stable mentor match. For a program to rightly emphasize scholarly output, it must first ensure that its students are provided with the fundamental prerequisite: a supportive and stable research home where such work can actually be undertaken.
My current situation, facing a recommendation for academic disqualification due to the inability to secure a faculty mentor after five rotations, effectively means I am being compelled to leave the PhD program. This outcome was not due to a lack of effort or qualification on my part (as evidenced by my WQE performance and prior research productivity), but rather, I believe, due to systemic shortcomings in the NSIDP’s mentor placement process, funding transparency, and capacity to support students through an extended search within its interdepartmental structure. I am now actively seeking to transfer to another PhD or MS program at UCLA to continue my studies.
My current circumstance is not a matter of “considering leaving” the NSIDP; rather, I am facing a program-initiated recommendation for academic disqualification, effectively compelling my departure from the PhD program. This outcome is solely based on the “failure to identify a faculty mentor” after five lab rotations, a situation I assert is a direct consequence of systemic and structural deficiencies within the NSIDP’s mentor placement process, communication protocols, and financial transparency for PI commitments, rather than a reflection of my academic capabilities, research potential, or lack of diligent effort. Throughout my two years, I have been fully committed to my studies and the pursuit of a research home, as evidenced by my performance on the WQEs and my proactive engagement in numerous rotations despite mounting challenges and diminishing direct support. The “additional work” I have undertaken has been the immense emotional and logistical labor of navigating five rotations with inconsistent feedback, concurrently managing demanding coursework, independently applying for external fellowships without mentor guidance during my second year, and ultimately, preparing a comprehensive appeal against this disqualification while simultaneously trying to secure a transfer to an alternative program. This entire period has felt like an exhausting, uphill battle against ill-defined expectations and structural inflexibility, culminating in a situation where the program’s failure to facilitate a successful mentorship match is being framed as my personal failure to meet degree progression requirements. The absence of an integrated M.S. option within NSIDP further exacerbates this, as it provides no safety net or alternative credential for the substantial time and effort invested.
The phrasing “considered leaving the program” does not accurately capture my situation; rather, I am currently facing a program-initiated recommendation for academic disqualification, which, if upheld by the Division of Graduate Education, will compel my departure from the NSIDP PhD track. This is not a path I chose or passively accepted. It is the direct outcome of what I perceive as systemic failures within the NSIDP, primarily its inability to facilitate my securing a faculty mentor despite my exhaustive efforts across five research rotations and my fulfillment of other academic requirements, such as passing the Written Qualifying Exams. The “additional work” I have undertaken during my two years in NSIDP has been extraordinary and largely invisible to formal program metrics. This includes the immense emotional and cognitive labor of repeatedly immersing myself in new lab environments, adapting to different research paradigms, and then facing rejection or ambiguity without clear, actionable feedback. It includes the constant stress and anxiety of an uncertain future, significantly exacerbated by my ADHD, while simultaneously managing a demanding PhD curriculum. It includes the independent pursuit of external fellowships during my second year without the benefit of dedicated mentorship, a task that most supported PhD students undertake with significant guidance. And finally, it includes the considerable work of preparing a detailed appeal to this disqualification and proactively seeking alternative academic pathways within UCLA.
My commitment has been to succeed within UCLA and the NSIDP. However, the program’s structure, particularly its mentor selection process, its handling of PI funding and availability issues, and its apparent inflexibility, seems to have created an environment where my “failure to maintain minimum progress” – defined solely by not having a mentor – became an almost inevitable outcome, rather than an anomaly to be rectified with robust institutional support. The basis for this disqualification, “failure to identify a faculty mentor,” feels particularly egregious and, from my research, unprecedented as the sole justification for dismissal for a student otherwise in good academic standing at UCLA. This is compounded by the program’s attempt, only after my appeal was lodged, to introduce other alleged unmet benchmarks, a move that feels both retaliatory and an admission of the initial grounds' insufficiency. The lack of an integrated M.S. option within NSIDP further underscores the punitive nature of this outcome, offering no formal recognition for two years of dedicated doctoral-level work and academic achievement.
A significant barrier encountered during the rotation process was the lack of transparency and consistency regarding PI funding for prospective graduate students. It was often unclear whether PIs had the financial capacity (e.g., ability to cover GSR costs, which are substantial) to take on an NSIDP student, irrespective of scientific fit or interest. Clearer communication from the program to students about PI funding expectations, and perhaps more robust mechanisms for NSIDP to supplement or bridge funding for promising matches, would alleviate a major source of uncertainty and stress in the mentor selection process.
Funding appears to be a critical, yet often opaque, structural barrier within the NSIDP that significantly impacts a student’s ability to secure a mentor. My experience and observations suggest a “hidden curriculum” around the financial implications for PIs considering an NSIDP student, particularly regarding the costs associated with a Graduate Student Researcher (GSR) position versus, for example, a postdoc. Several PIs, either directly or indirectly, indicated that taking me on would necessitate an additional financial contribution from NSIDP or their home department, a contribution that seemed rarely, if ever, forthcoming from NSIDP itself for students in my situation. This lack of financial transparency and programmatic support to bridge even minor funding gaps for otherwise good scientific matches creates immense inequity. It shifts the burden of these systemic financial constraints onto the student, who is often unaware of these complex internal funding dynamics between the IDP, PIs, and home departments until it’s too late. The program’s apparent unwillingness to invest its own resources in such situations, even when a PI explicitly stated this as a need early in the rotation process, suggests a prioritization of GPB endowment preservation over student retention and success. This can lead to decisions about a student’s future being unduly influenced by their perceived financial liability to the program, rather than their academic merit or research potential. Students should not be implicitly or explicitly penalized or made to feel like a financial burden when the root issue lies in how the IDP model is funded and how those financial responsibilities are communicated and managed with prospective PIs.
Funding, or rather the pervasive lack of transparency and consistency surrounding it, has been a monumental structural barrier throughout my attempts to secure a faculty mentor within NSIDP. It became apparent that a significant “hidden curriculum” exists regarding the financial obligations of PIs wanting to take on an NSIDP student, the specific costs of a GSR, and what contributions, if any, NSIDP or the GPB were willing or able to make to bridge funding gaps. This opacity created a deeply unfair and stressful situation for me as a student. On multiple occasions, promising rotations or expressions of initial PI interest seemingly dissolved when the financial practicalities came to the fore. For example, several PIs explicitly acknowledged to me or to NSIDP leadership that my continuation in their lab would require additional financial contributions from NSIDP, contributions that were evidently not made, leading to the termination of those potential mentorships. This was particularly frustrating in rotations where I believed I had met the PI’s primary scientific and research expectations, only to find that unstated or unresolved financial considerations became the ultimate roadblock.
The program’s expectation appeared to be that students should somehow intuit or navigate these complex financial landscapes independently, or that PIs should simply have readily available, complete funding packages for any NSIDP student they might consider. This fails to acknowledge the reality of grant cycles, the significant cost of a GSR (reportedly comparable to a postdoc but with higher mentorship demands), and the potential for interdepartmental funding complexities within an IDP. I strongly believe that the NSIDP’s evaluation of students, including myself, became intertwined with an assessment of our “anticipated financial liability” to the GPB. This is evidenced by the inconsistent responses to students in similar extended mentor-search situations; it seems that the program is willing to adjust procedural requirements only if doing so incurs no immediate or precedent-setting future financial cost. Even a single sentence from program leadership early in my rotation process, drawing my attention to a PI’s need for supplemental NSIDP funding to take me on, would have allowed for a more informed strategy and potentially avoided this outcome. Instead, I was largely left to discover these financial barriers indirectly and often too late, making me feel as though I was being held responsible for systemic funding challenges that are the program’s responsibility to manage transparently and equitably. My independent applications for external fellowships, undertaken without mentor support, further underscore my commitment, yet this effort was also hampered by the lack of a stable research environment to build a compelling grant application.
Factors that would have significantly helped my graduate experience include a more structured and transparent mentor selection process with clear communication channels and direct feedback from PIs. Proactive advising focused not just on academic milestones but also on navigating the “hidden curriculum” of securing a lab, especially for students with disclosed disabilities like ADHD, would have been invaluable. Furthermore, greater flexibility within the program structure, such as an established M.S. option, could provide crucial support and alternative pathways.
Reflecting on what would have constituted a helpful graduate experience within NSIDP, several factors stand out as currently deficient but critically important. Firstly, genuine institutional commitment to student success that translates into proactive, individualized advising and tangible support—especially when systemic barriers like mentor availability become apparent—would be paramount. This includes transparent communication channels where students receive direct, honest, and constructive feedback from PIs and program leadership, rather than vague or indirect messages. A program structure that offers flexibility, such as an integrated M.S. option, provides not only a safety net but also acknowledges the value of a student’s work even if the PhD path is not completed within that specific program. Early, comprehensive, and proactively offered support for students with documented disabilities, detailing how accommodations can apply to all program milestones including lab rotations and mentor interactions, would be crucial for equitable navigation of the program. Furthermore, a culture that actively demystifies the “hidden curriculum” of academia—addressing topics like funding, PI expectations, and navigating interdepartmental politics—would empower students immensely. Ultimately, a graduate experience is helped when the program acts as a genuine partner and advocate for its students, particularly when they encounter the inevitable structural and interpersonal challenges of doctoral training, rather than an entity that prioritizes procedural rigidity or its own financial considerations over the student’s potential and well-being.
Based on my experiences, the factors that would have critically helped my graduate experience within NSIDP, and which I believe are essential for any student’s success, particularly within a complex interdepartmental structure, were unfortunately largely absent or insufficiently implemented in my case. A truly helpful graduate experience would be built upon a foundation of proactive, transparent, and robust institutional support systems. This begins with a mentor selection process that is not a mere series of trial-and-error rotations but a guided, strategically managed endeavor where the program actively facilitates matches, ensuring PIs have both genuine interest and confirmed capacity (including funding) before a rotation begins. Clear, direct, and timely feedback from PIs, mandated and perhaps mediated by the program, is crucial, rather than the indirect and often vague communications I experienced.
Individualized advising that goes beyond tracking course completion to genuinely understanding and helping students navigate the “hidden curriculum” of academia—including the nuances of PI communication, lab dynamics, funding landscapes, and self-advocacy—would be transformative. For students with documented disabilities such as ADHD, this proactive support must include early and comprehensive discussions about how accommodations can be practically applied to all aspects of the program, particularly the unstructured and high-stakes demands of finding a lab and managing multiple rotations. This requires program leadership and faculty to be educated and empathetic regarding such challenges.
Furthermore, structural flexibility and safety nets are hallmarks of a supportive program. An integrated M.S. option within NSIDP would provide a dignified and valuable outcome for students who, for any number of reasons including systemic program issues, do not complete the PhD. Financial transparency regarding PI commitments and a willingness from the program to provide bridge funding or financial solutions in cases of good scientific fit but minor PI funding shortfalls would demonstrate a commitment to student talent over budgetary rigidity. Finally, a culture of accountability for program leadership and faculty in fulfilling their mentorship and support roles, coupled with a fair and consistently applied set of academic standards and progression policies, would create an environment where students feel valued and genuinely supported in their pursuit of scholarly excellence, rather than feeling like they are navigating an arbitrary and capricious system largely on their own.
The primary factors hindering my graduate experience were the opacity of the lab rotation and mentor selection process, leading to five rotations without securing a permanent lab. This was compounded by inconsistent and often indirect feedback from PIs, ambiguity surrounding PI funding availability and their capacity to take on new students, and a lack of programmatic flexibility or a clear support pathway when the mentor search became prolonged. The intense pressure of this protracted search, alongside demanding coursework, was particularly challenging to navigate with ADHD, especially with a late awareness of how accommodations might apply to the rotation process itself.
The most significant factor hindering my graduate experience in NSIDP has been the fundamentally flawed and inadequately supported lab rotation and mentor selection system. This was characterized by a pervasive lack of transparency, inconsistent and often indirect feedback from PIs, and a profound ambiguity surrounding PI availability, their capacity to mentor, and particularly their ability or willingness to meet the financial requirements of taking on an NSIDP student. This systemic issue created a protracted and intensely stressful two-year search across five rotations, an ordeal that was especially challenging to navigate with my documented ADHD, for which timely and appropriate programmatic accommodations were not apparent or proactively offered beyond standard coursework considerations. The immense pressure of this constant uncertainty, coupled with a demanding curriculum, made it exceedingly difficult to showcase my full potential. Further hindering my experience was the program’s structural inflexibility, notably the absence of an M.S. “off-ramp” or alternative pathway within NSIDP, which offers no recourse for students who, often due to these very systemic issues, cannot secure a PhD mentor. The perceived inconsistent application of program standards and support, where students in similar or even more precarious academic situations appeared to receive different levels of intervention or leniency, fostered a sense of unfairness and suggested that factors beyond academic merit, possibly related to perceived financial liability to the program, influenced outcomes. Ultimately, a feeling of being systematically failed and abandoned by the program, rather than supported through its inherent structural challenges, has been the defining hindrance.
My graduate experience within NSIDP was profoundly hindered by a constellation of interconnected systemic and structural factors, primarily rooted in a flawed, opaque, and inadequately supported lab rotation and mentor selection process. The expectation to secure a mentor after an arbitrary number of rotations, without sufficient programmatic infrastructure to ensure PI availability, commitment, and transparent communication, created an environment of chronic stress and uncertainty. The lack of direct, consistent, and actionable feedback from PIs after each rotation was a major impediment; I was often left guessing the true reasons for not being invited to join a lab, or received feedback so indirectly and belatedly that it was of little practical use for subsequent rotations. This communication vacuum made it incredibly difficult to adapt, improve, or address potential misunderstandings.
A significant hindrance was the pervasive ambiguity surrounding PI funding and capacity. It became clear that many PIs, while perhaps scientifically aligned, either did not have the current funding to support an NSIDP GSR or were unclear about the financial commitments required by NSIDP/GPB. The program’s apparent unwillingness to proactively clarify these issues before rotations or to step in with financial solutions to bridge gaps for well-matched students created an arbitrary barrier that had little to do with my scientific merit or effort. This contributed to a deeply unsettling feeling that my value to the program was being weighed against my perceived financial liability, a sentiment exacerbated by observing apparently inconsistent application of program standards and support levels among peers in similar situations.
The rigidity of the program structure, particularly the absence of an M.S. “off-ramp” or alternative pathway, made the high-stakes mentor search even more punitive. Furthermore, the program’s response to my documented ADHD felt insufficient. While CAE accommodations are available for coursework, there was no proactive guidance or apparent mechanism for applying or considering accommodations for the intense executive functioning demands of managing multiple rotations, complex interpersonal dynamics with potential PIs, and the overall stress of an extended and uncertain mentor search. This lack of tailored support for navigating the process itself, not just the academic content, was a critical failing. The culmination of these factors—opaque processes, poor communication, funding uncertainties, structural inflexibility, and inadequate support for my specific needs—created what felt like an insurmountable and deeply unfair set of obstacles to my progression in the NSIDP.
The review team should critically examine:
I urge the review team to meticulously examine the following areas and raise critical questions:
Given my experiences and the serious implications of my pending disqualification, I strongly urge the review team to conduct a rigorous and unflinching examination of several critical areas within NSIDP, raising the following pointed questions: