1. Case Introduction: Appeal of Academic Disqualification
This document summarizes the appeal against a recommendation for academic disqualification from the UCLA Neuroscience Interdepartmental Graduate Program (NSIDP), received April 28, 2025. The primary basis cited is "failure to identify a faculty mentor" following five research rotations.
The appeal asserts significant mitigating factors, including systemic challenges, the impact of documented ADHD, and ongoing efforts for a constructive resolution within UCLA. The primary objective is to request an abeyance of the disqualification, an extension to pursue a Major/Classification Change, and NSIDP's cooperation in this transfer.
Research Rotations Completed
Leading to the current challenge of securing a faculty mentor.
2. The Core Challenge: Securing Mentorship & Research Alignment
A central issue is the difficulty in identifying an NSIDP lab matching the student's core research interests (functional genomics, gene regulation, computational neuropsychiatric genetics) that also had concurrent capacity and funding for a new Ph.D. student.
Key Contributing Factors to Mentorship Challenge:
- Misalignment between specific research niche and available NSIDP lab focuses.
- PI-cited limitations: funding, space, or mentorship bandwidth.
- Systemic issues potentially impacting PI availability (e.g., federal funding cuts).
- Challenges in navigating the extended and high-stress process of five rotations.
The appeal emphasizes that these challenges are not solely reflective of academic performance but are intertwined with programmatic and systemic factors.
3. Critical Mitigating Factor: ADHD & Accommodation Gaps
Documented ADHD is presented as a significant factor, with impairments in executive functioning, sustained focus, and information processing, especially under stress. These limitations profoundly impacted the ability to navigate the demanding PhD lab rotation process.
Key Impacts & Accommodation Issues:
- 🧠 Cognitive Load: Immense difficulty managing five consecutive rotations, coursework, and mentor search.
- ⏱️ Delayed Awareness: Crucially, awareness of the possibility to seek accommodations for programmatic processes (beyond coursework/exams) occurred only after the 5th rotation.
- ⏳ Insufficient Appeal Timeline: The 10-business-day window for appeal and initiating a Major/Classification Change is deemed insufficient given the disability.
- ️🛠️ Untapped Support: Awarded a Will Rogers Scholarship for executive functions coaching, but timing prevented its use during a rotation period.
Lack of timely awareness of, and appropriate accommodations for, programmatic aspects impacted by ADHD is a significant mitigating circumstance.
4. NSIDP Systemic & Procedural Considerations
The appeal highlights several factors related to NSIDP's processes and support structures that warrant consideration as contributing to the difficulties faced:
Feedback and Guidance Concerns:
Difficulty adjusting/growing from rotations due to a lack of specific, direct, and actionable feedback from PIs, with critical information often relayed second-hand.
Clarity of PI Availability and Funding:
Instances of confusion or lack of transparency regarding PI funding/capacity, creating an unstable environment for securing a lab (e.g., confusion on GSR costs, impact of federal funding cuts).
Communication Channels:
Most critical discussions occurred in private meetings, suggesting a more collaborative, multi-party approach earlier on might have been beneficial.
Nature of "Academic Plan":
While an academic plan was in place, an intensification of perceived expectations and stigma after each rotation created a challenging environment.
5. Student's Proactive Efforts & Proposed Path Forward
Despite challenges, the student remained committed, worked diligently, learned new skills, and produced usable project data in rotations. Academic transcript reflects satisfactory coursework performance. This is not a record of unwillingness or incapacity for graduate work.
Pursuit of Major/Classification Change:
A key aspect of the appeal is the active pursuit of a Major/Classification Change to an alternative M.S. or Ph.D. program at UCLA, a path acknowledged by Professor Schweizer and discussed with Academic Case Manager Jaine Park.
March 31, 2025 (approx.)
Initial suggestion of Major/Classification Change by Prof. Schweizer, student begins articulating this as primary objective.
May 1, 2025
Professor Schweizer acknowledges student's intent to transfer (Exhibit E).
May 9, 2025
Jaine Park (DGE) indicates openness to discuss transfer if a willing department is identified (Exhibit F).
Ongoing
Actively pursuing leads with five suitable UCLA programs and seeking guidance from former UCSF PI (Exhibits G, H).
6. Requested Relief & Desired Future Path
Given the mitigating circumstances and the viable path of a Major/Classification Change, the following relief is respectfully requested from the Interdepartmental Degree Committee:
1. Abeyance/Rescind Disqualification
Hold the recommendation for academic disqualification in abeyance or rescind it.
2. Extension of Time
Grant an extension until the end of Fall 2025 quarter to finalize and submit a Graduate Petition for Major/Classification Change.
3. Formal Support for Transfer Efforts
Provide a letter/statement from NSIDP to the Graduate Division and potential receiving departments, acknowledging good standing in coursework and supporting the transition.
4. In-Person Hearing
Grant an in-person hearing to discuss this appeal.
The student is confident that in a program aligned with their strengths and with appropriate support, they can and will thrive at UCLA.