UCLA Ombuds Day 2 — Interactive Strategic Decision Tree

Opening — 60 seconds

Start by adopting Thomas's central concern

Say

Thomas, I took seriously your concern that reinstatement without a viable PI does not solve the underlying problem. I would like to use today to identify the most realistic academic path, who has authority for it, and one concrete next step—while I continue preserving the formal hearing and DGE processes.

Then refine yesterday's framing

I am not saying academic decisions should consider only factors within my control. Mentor non-placement is a mixed outcome: student performance matters, but so do faculty willingness, capacity, funding and research fit. I want a prospective structure that distinguishes those causes without guaranteeing me a mentor or lowering standards.

A — NSIDP continuation
Tier 1A

B — Internal program change
Tier 1B

C — Existing degree path
Tier 3

D — New application
Parallel hedge

Decision 1

Is a realistic NSIDP faculty-mentor path identifiable in the near term?

“Realistic” means: research fit + willingness to speak + eligibility + current/foreseeable trainee capacity + credible funding path + willingness to provide clear expectations.

Ask Thomas

Would you agree that I should screen for all of those variables early, rather than treating a rotation invitation or informational meeting as proof that permanent placement is actually available?

Always parallel

Fall 2027 PI/program relationship-building

Run this even if Branch A, B, or C is promising. It reduces dependence on a single administrative remedy and implements Thomas's Day 1 advice without conceding the formal appeal.

At every branch

Preserve formal rights independently

Do not orally agree to withdraw, stay, narrow, or waive the Procedure 230.2 hearing or DGE appeal. If a deadline or status is modified, get the change in writing.

Remedy ladder

Pressure-test each branch; do not ask for unconditional restoration

A — Structured NSIDP continuation Tier 1A

Best if: a realistic NSIDP PI path exists or can be developed quickly.

Ask: finite status-protected continuation, objective milestones, verified PI feasibility, prospective CAE/programmatic process, neutral implementation.

Do not ask: forced PI, guaranteed placement, lowered standards.

Key authority question

If I identify one or more genuinely plausible faculty members, who would need to agree to a finite continuation period—and who can actually authorize it?

B — Status-protected internal program change Tier 1B

Best if: a receiving UCLA program and faculty sponsor are genuinely willing.

Critical dependency: the ordinary change-of-major/classification route requires current registration/enrollment and good academic standing.

Key authority question

If a receiving program and faculty sponsor were willing, who could authorize the temporary restoration, remand, or other status mechanism needed to make the ordinary petition process available?

C — Existing alternative degree pathway Tier 3

Best if: an actual existing UCLA program has a suitable master's/other degree objective and is willing to consider a change.

Important: do not ask Ombuds to invent an NSIDP terminal master's.

Key question

Could an existing UCLA graduate program accept an internal change into a master's or other degree objective if the program wanted to do so and my status were restored sufficiently?

D — New application/readmission Parallel hedge

Build faculty relationships now for Fall 2027 while preserving all current internal processes.

Value: the same PI conversations can support either negotiated internal resolution or a new application.

Key question

What faculty relationship-building can I start now that is useful to either an internal solution or a new admission/readmission path?

Best settlement formulation

I am asking UCLA for a controlled academic test, not an unconditional restoration. If I cannot meet objective doctoral standards under a prospectively defined and reasonably accessible structure, UCLA retains its academic judgment. If I meet the standards but permanent placement fails because of faculty-side capacity or funding, that outcome should trigger neutral alternative-path review rather than automatically being treated as evidence of individual academic inability.

Authority escalation tree

Do not leave with “someone at UCLA”; leave with a role, office, or next identifier

Component	Question to ask Thomas	Live answer
Status restoration / protection	Who can authorize this—program faculty, DGE, another administrator, Graduate Council/CDP, or a combination?
Finite NSIDP continuation	Which faculty/program body must approve another defined academic opportunity?
PI feasibility	Who can verify that candidates actually have willingness, eligibility, capacity, and funding?
Internal program change	If a receiving program wants me, which receiving-program approvals and DGE steps are required?
Status barrier to transfer	Who can create a remand/status mechanism so the ordinary change-of-major petition can be used?
Programmatic disability access	Who should convene CAE + the academic program for a prospective individualized process?
Neutral implementation	Who can own milestones/check-ins without being a disputed merits actor?
Bridge during negotiations	Who can prevent a viable option from disappearing solely because status/timing changes?
Binding resolution	Who can negotiate/approve terms across the units that actually must be bound?
PI outreach while appeal is pending	Who can advise on the correct process without asking faculty to adjudicate the grievance?

Highest-yield authority question

If I identify a genuinely willing faculty sponsor or receiving program, what is the shortest legitimate administrative path from that willingness to restored or protected academic status?

Use evidence only to answer a Day 2 question

Five high-value factual anchors

1. Mentor placement is structurally bilateral

The applicable UCLA Neuroscience program requirements describe first-year rotations and indicate that mentor approval considers the student's choice and the ability of the faculty to serve in this capacity.

Use for: explaining why future placement should verify actual faculty capacity early. Do not use as a guaranteed-placement argument.

2. CRO's own adverse report treated Bearden's decision as mixed-cause

The report attributes the mentor decision to funding deficiencies and student performance. That supports only the narrow point that “no permanent mentor” was not treated as a pure performance variable.

3. Native faculty correspondence documents resource/capacity barriers

Wells: current funding, planned projects, and lab needs; positive regard for the rotation.
Balliu: no funding / no available positions.
Uddin: no funds for a new graduate student; potential co-mentorship after a primary lab was found.

Use for causal attribution only—not as evidence that any faculty member was obligated to accept you.

4. March 20 → March 31 → April 10 accommodation / status chronology

March 20 guidance surfaces a possible programmatic CAE route; March 31 explicit reevaluation request; April 10 no-additional-accommodation communication and DGE explanation of the committee/transfer posture occur while the status process is developing.

Use for: prospective process design. Do not claim timing alone proves retaliation or that March 31 initiated the ADQ process.

5. DGE asks a different question from CRO

DGE's nondiscrimination-based ADQ review examines whether Investigation Materials reflect substantive mitigating circumstances that could have affected academic performance.

Use for: explaining why a practical academic resolution can remain rational even if historical CRO findings stay adverse.

Working source set

Ombuds Day 1 agenda + transcript
July 29, 2026 CRO Investigation Report / Notice of Outcome
UCLA Faculty Outreach Matrix
March–April 2025 DGE / CAE correspondence
Applicable UCLA Neuroscience program requirements
UCLA Major / Classification Change procedure
UCLA Standards and Procedures for Graduate Study

Formal-rights decision tree

Whenever anyone proposes an informal step, pause, or settlement

1. Does the proposal affect a formal deadline, hearing scope, DGE appeal, or student status?

No: continue to Q2. Yes / maybe: do not rely on oral assurances—get exact terms in writing.

2. Is it merely neutral option exploration / feasibility testing?

Yes: generally compatible with Ombuds's informal role when kept narrow and non-adjudicative.

No / unknown: clarify purpose, authority, and consequences before acting.

3. Does it involve waiver, release, withdrawal, a stay, or settlement terms?

Yes: obtain legal review before agreeing if practicable.

Default rule

No deadline is modified unless UCLA confirms it. Preserve the hearing and DGE appeal independently.

Exact language bank

Use verbatim if the conversation becomes diffuse

Refocus

Could we bring this back to the decision tree? Which branch do you think is actually administratively realistic, and who has authority over the first step?

PI feasibility

I agree that reinstatement without a viable PI is not enough. Is there a neutral academic contact who can help me determine which faculty opportunities are genuinely available before another rotation or placement is treated as a benchmark?

Internal transfer

If a receiving UCLA program and faculty sponsor were genuinely willing, who could create the status or remand mechanism necessary to make the ordinary internal change process available?

Accommodation

I am not asking Ombuds to decide what accommodation was legally required in 2025. The prospective question is whether, if a viable path is restored, CAE and the academic program can engage together in an individualized process about the structure of that path.

Comparator

I do not assume another student's additional rotations create an entitlement for me. I think they are relevant only to show that additional-rotation flexibility has existed as an academic tool when mentor matching took longer.

Ombuds inquiry

Do you think one narrow, neutral Ombuds inquiry would materially clarify whether UCLA has an administratively viable academic-resolution pathway, or would you recommend that I make the first contact directly?

Highest-yield

If you were in my position and wanted to ask one person one neutral feasibility question first, who would that person be and what would you ask?

Close

Let me make sure I captured this correctly: the most realistic branch is __; the first person or office is __; they would need __ to say yes; my next three actions are __; and Ombuds will __ only if we have expressly agreed to that scope.

Portable source