UCLA Graduate Academic-Access Resolution Decision Tree

Decision 1

Is a realistic faculty-mentor path identifiable within the current graduate program?

A realistic path ideally includes scientific fit, faculty willingness, eligibility, current/foreseeable trainee capacity, and a plausible funding pathway.

Parallel option at every branch

Faculty/program relationship-building for a future admissions cycle

This can proceed in parallel with internal-resolution discussions and may support either a future application/readmission route or an internal academic transition.

Process coordination

Informal discussions and formal processes should remain clearly coordinated

If any informal resolution step would change a formal deadline, academic status, hearing date, or pending appeal process, the responsible office should clarify that effect in writing.

Prospective academic pathways

A — Structured continuation in current program
Current-program route

B — Internal program / major-classification change
Internal-transition route

C — Existing alternative degree pathway
Existing-program route

D — New application / readmission
Parallel future route

Pathway	What would need to be true	Core implementation questions
A — Structured continuation	A realistic faculty-mentor path exists or can be identified within a defined period.	Who can authorize a finite continuation period? Who verifies faculty willingness/capacity/funding? Who coordinates prospective expectations and disability-access processes?
B — Internal UCLA program transition	A receiving UCLA program and faculty sponsor are willing to consider the transition.	What status is required to use the normal internal change process? Who can authorize any remand/status mechanism needed to make that process available?
C — Existing alternative degree pathway	An existing UCLA graduate program has a suitable degree objective and is willing to consider a change.	Which receiving-program approvals are needed? What status and timing constraints apply?
D — New application / readmission	A future-cycle program and faculty relationship are academically viable.	Which faculty conversations can begin now? Which deadlines and program prerequisites should be tracked?

Shared remedy principle:
A prospective pathway can preserve UCLA's essential academic standards while making faculty feasibility, expectations, and access supports explicit at the outset.

Authority map

For the selected pathway, who can actually authorize each component?

Component	Authority question
Graduate status	Which office or faculty authority can restore, protect, or remand academic status?
Program continuation	Which program/faculty body can authorize another defined academic opportunity?
Faculty-mentor feasibility	Who can confirm willingness, eligibility, capacity, and funding before a placement is treated as viable?
Internal program change	Which receiving-program approvals and DGE steps are required?
Status prerequisite for program change	If current status prevents use of the normal petition process, who can create a legitimate remand/status mechanism?
Prospective disability access	Who coordinates an individualized process between the academic program and disability-services personnel?
Implementation	Who can oversee milestones, feedback, and administrative coordination?
Resolution approval	Who can approve terms that affect all necessary academic and administrative units?

Highest-yield authority question:
If a viable faculty sponsor or receiving program were identified, what is the shortest legitimate administrative path from that willingness to an implementable academic status?

Shared principles

Principles designed to make any pathway academically rigorous and administratively workable

No forced mentor: faculty willingness remains essential.
No lowering of essential academic standards: academic expectations remain explicit and measurable.
Early feasibility screening: distinguish research interest from actual capacity, funding, and permanent-placement feasibility.
Prospective clarity: define expectations and feedback structures before the next academic opportunity begins.
Individualized access process: if a viable academic path exists, academic and disability-access personnel can evaluate prospective supports in relation to essential program requirements.
Administrative clarity: identify the person or body responsible for status, program approval, mentor feasibility, and implementation.
Parallel planning: internal-resolution efforts need not prevent constructive faculty relationship-building for future admissions cycles.
Formal-process coordination: any effect of an informal resolution on pending formal deadlines or proceedings should be expressly clarified by the responsible office.

Overall objective:
Identify a finite, realistic academic path that allows continued qualification to be assessed under clear standards while accurately distinguishing student performance from faculty-side feasibility constraints.

Reference framework: UCLA Ombuds principles and role; UCLA graduate-program and major/classification-change procedures; UCLA Neuroscience program requirements; UCLA Standards and Procedures for Graduate Study.