goldheartmountaintop

I wanted to duplicate goldheartmountaintop's advice/experience. I didn't contact any one directly and only spoke about them in my SOP and had a successful application round. It can be daunting to cold contact a POI, and I get the feeling that sometimes they don't always respond. Perhaps others can speak to this though, since I didn't try it out. I feel like it would be a different story all together if you meet these people at a conference or colloquium or even through current students....again, I'm not sure about this.
 
Anyway, I think the best first review step would be, as previously mentioned, to go over your application with a fine tooth comb to improve it overall. I've also read around on here that you may have some luck contacting the programs to see if they have any advice for improving your application.

mq1, I highly doubt that you were rejected strictly because you didn't have POIs. I'm also not convinced that having POIs is what admissions committees care most about when they look through applications. Of course, fit with the department is important (and here is where it helps to have some POIs in mind), but it's also important to have a strong APPLICATION. That includes statement of interest, writing samples, letters of reference, grades, previous research/experiences, etc etc etc. These are what will convince people that you are a strong researcher with interesting questions, as well as the drive and ability to answer those questions.   Also, re: getting in touch with professors, I never contacted anyone either of the times I applied (last year applying to MA programs as an undergrad, and this year applying to PhD programs as an MA student), though I mentioned them in my statements to explain why I was applying to the schools in the first place. Both years I was accepted to very good schools. Also, if you look at previous threads (Fall 2012/Decisions 2012), you will see that some people didn't even mention any POIs in their statements, and were still accepted.    So I guess what I'm trying to say is that, mq1, while having POIs in mind when you apply is a good thing, it's even better to have a good, strong application altogether. I would therefore suggest that you focus on strengthening every aspect of your application. I hope this helps. Good luck!!  

mq1, I highly doubt that you were rejected strictly because you didn't have POIs. I'm also not convinced that having POIs is what admissions committees care most about when they look through applications. Of course, fit with the department is important (and here is where it helps to have some POIs in mind), but it's also important to have a strong APPLICATION. That includes statement of interest, writing samples, letters of reference, grades, previous research/experiences, etc etc etc. These are what will convince people that you are a strong researcher with interesting questions, as well as the drive and ability to answer those questions.   Also, re: getting in touch with professors, I never contacted anyone either of the times I applied (last year applying to MA programs as an undergrad, and this year applying to PhD programs as an MA student), though I mentioned them in my statements to explain why I was applying to the schools in the first place. Both years I was accepted to very good schools. Also, if you look at previous threads (Fall 2012/Decisions 2012), you will see that some people didn't even mention any POIs in their statements, and were still accepted.    So I guess what I'm trying to say is that, mq1, while having POIs in mind when you apply is a good thing, it's even better to have a good, strong application altogether. I would therefore suggest that you focus on strengthening every aspect of your application. I hope this helps. Good luck!!  

mq1, I highly doubt that you were rejected strictly because you didn't have POIs. I'm also not convinced that having POIs is what admissions committees care most about when they look through applications. Of course, fit with the department is important (and here is where it helps to have some POIs in mind), but it's also important to have a strong APPLICATION. That includes statement of interest, writing samples, letters of reference, grades, previous research/experiences, etc etc etc. These are what will convince people that you are a strong researcher with interesting questions, as well as the drive and ability to answer those questions.   Also, re: getting in touch with professors, I never contacted anyone either of the times I applied (last year applying to MA programs as an undergrad, and this year applying to PhD programs as an MA student), though I mentioned them in my statements to explain why I was applying to the schools in the first place. Both years I was accepted to very good schools. Also, if you look at previous threads (Fall 2012/Decisions 2012), you will see that some people didn't even mention any POIs in their statements, and were still accepted.    So I guess what I'm trying to say is that, mq1, while having POIs in mind when you apply is a good thing, it's even better to have a good, strong application altogether. I would therefore suggest that you focus on strengthening every aspect of your application. I hope this helps. Good luck!!  

In terms of size and things to do, I don't think Calgary is going to be lacking in most respects, compared to Vancouver. Like bamafan said, Calgary isn't a small town, it's one of Canada's biggest cities! In fact, Calgary proper is bigger than Vancouver proper (but Vancouver metro area is much bigger than the Calgary metro area).
 
However, I can understand why someone who is used to Vancouver might not feel super excited about moving to Calgary! This statement will just add to the overall reputation of Vancouverites being snobby, but I really do think Vancouver is the best place to live in Canada I feel that the culture of Vancouver and Calgary are very different. Disclaimer: I haven't lived in Calgary before but I have visited several times, and have friends/family there. Canadians like to joke that Alberta/Calgary is the "Texas" of Canada, but I think that might be an exaggeration (I've never been to Texas). 
 
What I'm trying to say is that you might be less happy with any other city in Canada, and you could do a lot worse than Calgary! For example, [joking] you could be stuck in Toronto [/joking] or an actual small town in Canada. Research-wise, your best fit does sound like Calgary. But don't feel bad about using non-research/career/academic criteria to pick your school. 
 
I think it might be worth it to basically put a "happiness" value on every criteria and then pick the choice that makes you the most happy. For example, research fit is definitely important in order to make you happy. So is things like future career opportunities, weather, city environment, where you want to raise your family, etc. For some people, research fit might make them more happy than being in a city they enjoy. For others, it's the other way around. There's no right answer, I think it's perfectly acceptable to pick a good that is a bad fit for you in terms of research in order to gain happiness from the other metrics -- as long as you are making an informed decision! So I don't agree with bamafan when he/she says that funding+research is way more important. It just depends on what will make you and your family personally happy. 
 
Also, keep in mind that humans, I think, are naturally resistant to change. When I moved from Vancouver to Kingston, I initially thought I would absolutely hate it there and be miserable for the whole 2 years (there were other reasons that still made this the most "happy" choice for me though). When I actually got there, adjusting to the new way of things was much easier than I thought. Even the weather was not as bad as I thought it would be. In the end, we will still probably never ever move back to the eastern side of the continent, but we did overestimate how unhappy we would have been over there. 

Hi again everybody! I would like to share with you the good news that I finally got off Rutger's waiting list! Thanks for your prompt decisions! I wish all of you have heard or will hear good news too!
I think I am displaying symtons of Phonolog-Syndrome: I can't really trust the news before receiving the official letter :-)

I think that there are two separate issues here, which I'll address in turn.

First, it sounds like you need to take a more active role in your education. That's precisely what you describe your friend as doing: apply for positions, schmooze with professors, talk yourself up. Since you do less of that, I think it's not unreasonable that professors have less of an idea of your research interests, and that they associate you with your friend's interests (since you describe yourself as his sidekick). Furthermore, since your friend has obviously been successful in his past positions, you can also kind of see why he would be recommended or sought after by other professors. You need to start building a name for yourself that's similar to that. If you do a good job, I don't see why you wouldn't also be appreciated. People are recognized for work they do, not for potential they might have. Prove yourself, and people will take notice.

Second (and more difficult), you need to stop comparing yourself to your friend. A fact of life is that there is always going to be someone smarter/faster/better at something than you are. If you give up as soon as you encounter such a person, you won't get very far. A fact of life is also that it's not always those smarter/better people who succeed more in life, you can affect your destiny by being active and taking initiative. Get your foot in the doorway, get to know professors and try to start collaborations - essentially do the things you say your friend is doing. Hey, maybe your friend will even be willing to talk to you about how he strikes up conversations with professors and gets these collaborations. It's something useful to learn how to do. From your story, I didn't think he was doing anything to harm you, though he may have been insensitive or oblivious when he could have helped you out. If you talk to him, that may change. ... or you may find out that you were right to distance yourself from him, but either way I think you'll use your energy better if you invest it in furthering your own causes rather than comparing yourself to others.

And just to add to everything I have said above, I would like to quote a very wise comment by Red Bull from another "what are my chances" thread:

That's something I wrote in a different thread (this one: ). As such, I agree with it!
 
However, I don't think that choosing to stay at one's alma mater is automatically the "wrong choice." There could be several compelling reasons to do so. Perhaps it's the only program that offered good funding. Or perhaps the research fit at all of one's other schools is significantly less ideal than the fit at one's alma mater. Maybe it's even the only school that has a strong program in your field of interest (a real concern for those of us in pretty obscure fields). You definitely shouldn't choose a program that is a poor fit for you academically just for the sake of choosing a new school. If your alma mater really is the best fit for you, or if it's really the only choice that makes sense financially/professionally/for whatever other reason, then you should stay there for your PhD. I don't think staying at the same school for multiple degrees is some kind of automatic academic suicide (though you would, as Mr. Cage suggested, want to do your postdoc elsewhere).
 
That said, more often than not it's probably better to branch out and go to a different school for your PhD if that's a feasible option for you. Generally, if there are other good (i.e. well-funded, good-fitting) offers on the table, I would advise switching schools rather than staying. With all other things being equal, I think that most people would benefit by completing their education at a different university for all of the reasons that I described in the thread I linked to above. Again, you need to ask yourself... can my alma mater *really* offer me much more? Chances are that you've already taken away all that you could from that school.
 
To answer the OP's question, I don't think there's really a clear-cut point at which prestige counteracts the effects of "academic inbreeding." It probably varies depending on a load of other factors. In my opinion, though, I think that prestige should only win out if there is a huge gap in the rankings (i.e. one is near the top while the other is near the bottom of the list). I say this because, in general, if you've done your undergrad and master's at this prestigious institution, then you've probably already benefited from that school's prestige as much as you ever will. Its name will forever be associated with yours on your CV. And you've already built up strong connections at that school that can open doors for you later on. Staying there for an extra 5 or so years most likely won't change that very much. In almost all cases, it would be better to go somewhere else, mainly to (1) expand your professional network via professors in a new department [and the connections they may have elsewhere] and (2) expose yourself to new perspectives as well as new resources that may not have been available at your old school. One exception to this, of course, is if you'll be doing your PhD work in a different department than you did your other degrees, or if you're working with faculty members that you didn't interact with much in the past (maybe the school has just hired a new "academic rockstar" in your field?). In that case, there *is* a lot left for you to take away from the school.
 
Also, this all assumes that you're planning on a career in academia. If you want to go into industry, the situation will likely be very different. Your potential employer would probably be more impressed that you did your PhD at a prestigious school and likely wouldn't care that you also did your MS and undergrad there.

My mother:
 
"What's Stanford??"
 
Or even better.. "What's MIT??"
 
- when I didn't get into MIT - "Probably for the best. I've never heard of it before. And (insert random local college from hometown) sounds great"

I've been accepted to 6/7 schools I applied to. Of my top three choices, two completely ignored my emails asking for some more, informal questions I had about the program and my request for some current-student contacts. The third school answered every single damn one of my emails within a few hours, and seemed genuinely interested in helping me out on my decision as well as providing me with 9(!) students who said they would love to talk to me about anything regarding their experiences. One of the two ignorers is the top-ranked program in the nation, but I'm going to the friendly school because I place a very high value on a collaborative/cooperative climate, and I just wasn't getting that from the other schools. 

I voted for School A. Like selecttext, I don't see very many benefits to school B.
 
At B, you would be the very first student of a new faculty member, and that's a risky position to be in. For one thing, she has never mentored a graduate student before and thus neither you nor she has any way of knowing whether or not she'll be good at it. It's entirely possible that she'd be a great mentor (there are many excellent young professors out there), but she could also be a terrible advisor. There's no way to tell, and no one that you can ask about it (since she has no previous students)... it's kind of a gamble. Also, as her first, you'd be like her "training wheels." She'll use the aspects of her mentoring style that did and did not work for you as a learning experience to help her improve her mentoring abilities for her next few graduate students. That's great for her future students, but not so great for you. Now, *someone* has to be the guinea pig, but do you want it to be you? Only you can really decide that, but personally I'd think it would be much more advantageous to work with an advisor who is more experienced in mentoring students. More experienced professors will also have more connections in the field, as you said, and that is hugely valuable... when it comes to landing a job (or even a postdoc) in the highly competitive world of academia, sometimes "who you know" is just as important as "what you know." And, as selecttext mentioned, you shouldn't assume that your being her only student would guarantee you plenty of 1-on-1 time. She's a new professor, and thus will likely be under a lot of pressure to churn out publications, bring in grant money, and get her name and research noticed at conferences so that she can secure tenure for herself later on. She might also have a heavy teaching load, as is typical for many new faculty members. As such, it's very possible that she'd get wrapped up in her own stuff and have less time to really focus on your stuff than you imagine. Or... not. It depends on the individual professor, really. But, in my opinion, being someone's "very first" is not an attractive option.
 
There's also the possibility that a new faculty member could be fired/not given tenure, or accept a job offer at a different school and move her lab there. Would you have a contingency plan in such a scenario?
 
Also, I think you might be getting a little too hung up on the primate issue. The research question is far more important than the organism that you choose to explore it in. My undergrad advisor worked on prairie dogs as a PhD student, then went through a wasp phase, and now works on spiders. She was able to do that because the type of research question that she was investigating ("What are the causes and consequences of the evolution of social behavior?") remained the same, and all three of those organisms were good model systems for the various studies that she was conducting. If the type of question that you are interested in can be adequately explored in primates, then why not? I don't think it would limit your career prospects any more than sticking with rodents at School B would. In fact, it would probably be beneficial to be able to say "I have experience working with both rats and primates" when you are applying for jobs. To me, it sounds more impressive than "I've only ever worked with rats and mice; they're all I know." As long as your command of your field is solid, the organisms that you have worked on in the past will probably not significantly restrict the number of universities that would hire you.
 
Furthermore, it sounds like School A would be more of a learning experience. You say that you'd have to master more new techniques if you go to School A, and that (in my opinion) is a good thing! You'll expand your scientific toolkit, and that will make more a more impressive CV that will then make you more broadly marketable when you're looking for postdocs and careers.
 
The only real "downside" I see to School A is the fact that the PIs are rather hands-off. But as long as they are not impossible to reach when you need assistance, you should be fine. Working independently is a skill that all graduate students should have anyway, in my opinion. Also, if there are a bunch of postdocs in the lab, they'd probably be able to help you with smaller things ("How do I use this piece of equipment?" or "Where can I find this thing that I need?"). That said, if you really don't thrive under that kind of working environment (everyone is different), it's something to consider and weigh heavily. But again, don't assume that the other professor would necessarily be very hands-on. She may be, or she may not be.
 
In contrast, the only "upside" to School B is the fact that you get along with the PI. That's definitely something that you want, but you it's not enough to outweigh all of the potential downsides to B and upsides to A. School B is also probably the more comfortable choice because the research is more familiar to you, but you shouldn't necessarily consider that an upside. Leaving the comfort zone can be hard (I know that I hate doing it), but doing so will probably open you up to new experiences, skills, and opportunities that will ultimately help you later on.
 
I hope this was helpful. Good luck with the decision! :-)

For anyone that might have been following my ongoing drama, I must rejoice by announcing I was admitted off the U Mich waiting list today. I wish the best of luck to everyone if results are not yet ready, and in their decisions.

I second Phonolog and Kwest's posts; having a published paper (or even conference proceedings) is definitely not a prerequisite for getting into PhD programs! Also, as fuzzylogician mentioned, getting published in an article takes a loooong time; given that you mentioned that you want to apply to PhD programs next Fall, you'd have like less than a year to write something publishable and get it published (which I'm not entirely sure is feasible, but that depends on your abilities, of course).    There are a lot of other factors involved in getting accepted. In addition to research experience, getting accepted depends on your research interests, your statement, writing samples, GRE, grades, reference letters, etc. It might also help if you aim to apply for a Master's first. MA programs are generally easier to get into, and you'll have an extra year or two to develop your research interests, get more experience in academia (i.e. go to conferences, try to publish, etc.), and make connections with the faculty in your department (better reference letters; more research experience if there are opportunities, etc.).   For instance, I am currently in a Master's program and have no publications or conference proceedings (I presented at like two undergraduate conferences last Spring, but that's it); my writing samples were two term papers I had written in the first term of my MA. However, I got into two really good PhD programs in Canada and the US. Obviously, my lack of publications/conference proceedings was not a factor; I think my getting in had to do primarily with some the other stuff I mentioned (I didn't even take the GRE). So, while having publications will obviously help you, I don't think you should despair if you don't have anything published by the time you start applying! 

I have had two conference proceedings, but as you can see, it's helpful but not a prerequisite. They know very well where you are located and your circumstances and what is reasonably available to you during your BA. I'd say have a writing sample that COULD be a conference paper or one day publishable, rather than focusing on getting the official acknowledgement these venues provide while still in the BA. A careful adcom will know quality when they see it, even if the paper you choose to use will only have been seen by them up to that point.

Phonolog, this all sounds terrible, but I don't understand what happened exactly. The only way this makes any sense to me is if you're an international student. They've been having problems with funding for international students going at least as far back as when I applied (PM me if you want the details). It sounds like something like that has happened again, but they are handling it very poorly. The only other reason I can think of something like this happening is if the department accepted you but the graduate school at UCSC decided you don't meet the general university requirements. I think it's important to point out that this doesn't necessarily need to reflect badly on your POIs because they are probably powerless in the situation, but it definitely sounds like they are not being clear about what is going on. Even if you have already decided not to attend UCSC, for your own future peace of mind I would strongly encourage you to follow this through and find out what went wrong. The best way to get to the truth is to talk to someone on the phone - probably either Sandy Chung (the graduate program director) or Jaye Padgett (the department chair). I would encourage you not to take no for an answer. Regardless of how this plays out, in the future you'll feel better about knowing you didn't just let them rescind your offer without asking all the difficult questions.
 
Finally, I wish you luck with your last pending school!!  Such bad luck must be offset by a good amount of good luck, too.

This isn't a beauty contest; what do you actually want to do that isn't the fanciful ravings of a poet?

This year's LSA institute fellows have been announced. Congrats to the winners! 
 
http://www.linguisticsociety.org/news/2013/03/07/linguistic-institute-fellows-announced

Thanks! I have the impression that the waiting list is just a softer form of rejection. Not that many syntax students like UMass. I guess that's why I am wait-listed and not flat-out rejected. I actually plan to turn myself into a semanticist when I land there. Maybe they have discovered my conspiracy and decided not to give me the chance...just kidding haha! If you applied to UMass as a semantics student, I think it is normally more challenging than you apply as a syntax/acquisition student. So don't take this as reflection of your inadequate ability.
I personally take this to mean that I can work harder. I plan to add 15mins' reading time daily for every rejection I receive. So if I'm rejected by all the four programs that wait listed me, I will read one additional hour each day throughout my life. I can imagine how fruitful it is!
I perfectly understand your feeling. Rejection is so difficulty to take. You need to re-establish your self-image and even re-plan your future. But if you can cope with rejection successfully, it might be instrumental to your personal growth. My experience is that among the faculty members in my current program, those who have been rejected are maturer, easier to work with, and more productive. Somehow those who have got into every program are more self-centered, harder to communicate, and less productive. This could be only a co-incidence due the small sample size. No offense to the successful applicants in this forum.

This application season ended for me mid-Jan, and I have sinced contemplated about how one would pick out just one school.  
I know very well that it is one of the most important decisions I will ever make. 
 
Before you read any further, let me tell you that I have done as much "homework" as I possibly can on picking schools (feel free to advise me on this): (1) school rankings, (2) department rankings, (3) research fit, (4) professors' research background / tenure (or not - how many years left) / publications etc, (5) Their placements (academia and industry), (6) fundings, (7) if they are taking new students, (8) cost of living, weather, quality of life at that area.
 
I thought I knew a lot.  And that has changed completely, in the last few days.
 
I (luckily) got my hands on this source of information which provides me with a much more complex picture of faculty connections, their personalities, their styles of working with students, and academic pedigrees that generally are not available to applicants.  Long story short, it involves a lot of luck, and I have learnt several things that I want to share:
 
1. An adcom picks out applicants based on these factors, in order of importance: (1) rec letters, (2) combination of GPA and GRE scores, (3) statement of purpose, (4) research experience.  Why, you ask?  Name recognition is very important in academia, and if your rec letters come from the big shots in your field, it makes your applications 10x better.  GPA+scores give a general idea of competence.  Your SOP tells them what kind of person you are; how much and how well you can talk about your research experience shows commitment and competence.  If and ONLY if your SOP matches with what were written in your rec letters, then you are in.  From what I heard, generally undergraduate students do not partake in very meaningful research, so adcoms see it as a preparation step of commitment and resilience, rather than looking at the quality of the research itself.
 
2. Keep an open mind:  Do not be obsessed with school rankings.  Be where you feel the most happy.  Be where you feel supported by faculty.  Be where department dynamics and lab dynamics are good. Generally, you have an idea of this during your visits, so do not make any decision before you visit all the schools you are accepted to.
 
3. The most important thing about picking a school, is that feeling like there is more than one person in the department you could be happy working with. Be robust to environmental fluctuations!  It is very possible that you dont end up working for that one person that you wanted to.  Only join a department that you like working for more than person.
 
And there is so much more.  As I come to realize how complex it is, I feel obliged to share what I have learnt.  Good luck with your decision!

What is the tenure track placement record for the department? For your adviser specifically?  Average time to completion?  (if you don't already know of course) Do they have funding for summer projects?  What about funding for conference participation?  For current students: What is something unexpected you've learned about the department that you didn't know when you applied?  How much contact time do you have with your advisor?  What are the TA responsibilities/time commitment like?

One thing I've found helpful is reading dissertation acknowledgments, which are often openly available on the department's website. It's kind of creepy to do because you're reading about real people, but if you ignore that aspect, I think it's a good way to gauge the writer's overall experiences in the program. In my field, the dissertations usually start off with a page or two of acknowledgments to faculty, fellow students, etc. Reading them can really give you an idea of the atmosphere of the program, the sense of rapport among students, and the supervisory styles of the professors you want to work with. Obviously, the dissertation acknowledgments are always positive, so you won't really be able to find out about the bad stuff about the program, but I think that you can count on them being more genuine (and more detailed) than emails from people trying to recruit you. 

Do you have close correspondence with the professors in all these programs? If not, you can simply accept the offer you want most and decline the rest. There is no risk losing anything. If you do have correspondence with some programs, then you have to worry about how to say no nicely. As for how to make a decision, I visit the websites and retrieve the track records of the recent alumni. I also look at the works of the existibg graduate students, checking if they have collaborations with the faculty members and among themselves. This gives a hint of the research atmosphere in the department.
I will also email the existing graduate students asking if they feel good in the department and how XYZ(=your intended supervisor(s))'s style of supervision is.
If both departments are equally excellent in all these respects, I will start looking at the cities and the funding package. I know that there are some good resources in the City page of this forum.
Please pardon me if I am too frank. You've got excellent offers while there are people who are still waiting and sighing. Your words might have hurt the feeling of some of us here. I perfectly understand that it's hard to choose, but I believe you will make an excellent decision. after all, you are capable of getting these wonderful admissions : )

Since I believe in not doing anything online I wouldn't say IRL (and I went first, perhaps spawning a bandwagon), I'll cop to a thumbs down. If it really cramps your style, PM me and I'll thumb it back up, but my reasons were:

1. Yes, bold font = internet yelling. (so does capslock). It's just puts readers unnecessarily on the defensive, I feel.

2. This is the sort of post that makes me suspect a troll (albeit the marginally subtler type who parodies those brown-nosing posters whose biggest problem is not being able to decide which of a half dozen excellent schools to go to. Sorry, anon. internet persons, but I just can't bring myself to care deeply about that level of angst).
--I realize that in all likelihood you post was completely sincere and well-meant, but I frankly can't tell from your profile or use of this forum what you're doing here, what you hope to add to or gain from this community, or where you stand in relation to academia. If I could tell, say, that you were currently an undergraduate, your comments would make more sense to me and I could say "hey, FYI, this is something that matters a lot less at the grad. level."

3. Assuming it is totally sincere, this post is still not useful advice for a graduate or potential graduate student. At the graduate level, your level of respect for the faculty and department is conveyed by your knowledge of and enthusiasm for the work that is done there, by your respect for the person, space and time of your prospective faculty and peers. This means you show up having done your research, you remain willing to listen to others but able to discuss your own work intelligently, you don't monopolize anyone unduly at social functions, you shake hands firmly and make eye contact when people talk to you. You thank people for their time and (verbally or in writing) express enthusiasm for the department. You follow up promptly with those who were particularly generous with their time or invited you to stay in touch.

There's nothing wrong with erring on the side of formal dress if it will make you feel more at ease, but school colors, pins, etc., IMO, come off as creepy and fan-ish (not to mention unrelated to the scholarly work). Chances are if you "revere" them too much, you will have a hard time becoming a peer to members of the faculty.
There's also nothing wrong with being a fan of the school's teams or athletic programs (with which those colors are usually most closely associated), but that's not the point of graduate study, nor should it be the only image you project to your peers and mentors.

I agree with what everyone said about going to all the open houses you can for the reasons mentioned above! It's definitely good to start setting up professional relationships and also just get a sense of what it's like at the schools, even if they're not on your radar for PhD studies right now. I also agree with moody and misskira, though; I don't think trying to negotiate more funding would leave a very good impression at all, even if you are a highly sought-after student.