Age is a liability for a prospective student?

[NYCStudent]

Hi everyone - I'm applying for PhD programs in sociology for this fall, and just had a pretty discouraging meeting with a faculty member I thought I would potentially want to work with. My path to the PhD has been pretty windy - I initially wanted to do a PhD in History after graduating in 2010, but got freaked out about the bad job market and general bad economy (stupid recession!). Instead, I worked in communications for a few years before working in student affairs (and also getting my MS in higher ed). My grad program was really my introduction to sociology, and I would love to continue a lot of the research I did about higher education's role in shaping political/social attitudes at the PhD level.

So, this brings me to my conversation today. Essentially, the faculty member said my age (just turned 30) and my experiences working in other industries might actually hurt my application. The reasoning was that a PhD is hard work, and a person who's applying just out of undergraduate doesn't know what else is out there, so is more likely to finish it because he/she doesn't have other options. But someone who's older and who has had a more circuitous journey might be more likely to drop out when things get hard, because they know there are other things out there they could do that would be easier than writing a dissertation. I think the fact that I also said my end goal was ideally to work as a faculty member, but that I would be open to working outside of academia (because, you know, it's not the best job market and sometimes you gotta be practical!) might have also led her to dismiss me in this way.

I spent a lot of grad school researching the current generation of PhD students and their economic outcomes trying to make it on the academic job market. This should come as a shock to no one on this forum that it's not rosey! And for departments to basically ignore this reality and fault someone for trying to figure out how to pursue research AND have economic stability just really rubs me the wrong way. I was actually planning on using my non-traditional as an asset, not a liability in my SOI. 

Thoughts? Am I just being a sensitive Millennial snowflake, or am I right to feel insulted by this conversation?

 

[maelia8]

I'm not sure about insulted, but I am rather surprised that the conversation went this way. I am currently in a history Ph.D. program, and in my cohort, the majority of graduate students began the program after two or more years of work/life experience outside of the academy, rather than heading in straight from undergrad. Most of them say that what they did strengthened their applications, and most professors I have spoken to would agree - I for example was an overseas English teacher for two years in the country that is the focus of my historical research, and this has only been regarded positively by faculty at my institution. If anything, those who come in later are more motivated to get in and complete their dissertation in a timely fashion, since they know they aren't getting any younger and have also done so much research on grad school before applying that they know what they are getting into. It is also problematic for a professor at any Ph.D. granting institution in the humanities or social sciences today to denigrate the possibility of working outside of academia, when even elite institutions only have a tenured professor placement rate of about 1/3 two years after filing. 

In sum, I believe you were speaking to someone who represents a significant outlier, and should take their feedback with a grain of salt. This does not represent a typical response, and I would not want to work with someone who had that attitude about applicants' qualifications, or the realities of the postgrad academic job market.

[ResilientDreams]

51 minutes ago, NYCStudent said:

Hi everyone - I'm applying for PhD programs in sociology for this fall, and just had a pretty discouraging meeting with a faculty member I thought I would potentially want to work with. My path to the PhD has been pretty windy - I initially wanted to do a PhD in History after graduating in 2010, but got freaked out about the bad job market and general bad economy (stupid recession!). Instead, I worked in communications for a few years before working in student affairs (and also getting my MS in higher ed). My grad program was really my introduction to sociology, and I would love to continue a lot of the research I did about higher education's role in shaping political/social attitudes at the PhD level.

So, this brings me to my conversation today. Essentially, the faculty member said my age (just turned 30) and my experiences working in other industries might actually hurt my application. The reasoning was that a PhD is hard work, and a person who's applying just out of undergraduate doesn't know what else is out there, so is more likely to finish it because he/she doesn't have other options. But someone who's older and who has had a more circuitous journey might be more likely to drop out when things get hard, because they know there are other things out there they could do that would be easier than writing a dissertation. I think the fact that I also said my end goal was ideally to work as a faculty member, but that I would be open to working outside of academia (because, you know, it's not the best job market and sometimes you gotta be practical!) might have also led her to dismiss me in this way.

I spent a lot of grad school researching the current generation of PhD students and their economic outcomes trying to make it on the academic job market. This should come as a shock to no one on this forum that it's not rosey! And for departments to basically ignore this reality and fault someone for trying to figure out how to pursue research AND have economic stability just really rubs me the wrong way. I was actually planning on using my non-traditional as an asset, not a liability in my SOI. 

Thoughts? Am I just being a sensitive Millennial snowflake, or am I right to feel insulted by this conversation?

 

The argument that people straight out of undergrad are more likely to finish a PhD because they "don't know what else is out there" makes absolutely no sense to me. I would think a non-traditional student would be MORE likely to finish because they DO know what's out there and yet have decided to dedicate time and resources to pursuing the PhD. I think it's easier for people coming straight from undergrad to drop out because they want to "explore what's out there" whereas someone who has been out of school longer has most likely put a lot of thought and effort into making this life change.

[p287]

I'm in Media/Communication (current MA student, applying for PhD), and I agree that I am surprised by this response. I have met with some schools who require both Masters degrees and professional experience of PhD applicants. This would, realistically, put the average applicant at a minimum of 25 years old. Maybe this individual or school has had bad experiences with some older applicants, but this is definitely different from information I have heard.

[high_hopes]

I'm also surprised. I started my PhD after a few years of work experience and felt it was really valued by the faculty in my department who appreciated my "real-world" experience. I don't think you should take what this individual professor said as evidence of a broad consensus.

[imd]

I am very surprised from the feedback you received. I started my Phd in History  a year ago when I was 35, after a very successful career 12 year career in STEM field. I feel that all the faculty members in my department think I have more responsibility and accountability given my real-world experience. The fact that you are doing a Phd (even though you had another paying job ) proves that you are actually serious about. I would say that having options outside of Academia is a great source of relief during your Phd experience,  it will reduce the stress and tension (that others experience because they have no other options) which will actually help you finish! 

[NYCStudent]

Thanks, everyone, for your responses. This is very reassuring! Best of luck to this season's applicants!

[wolnosc]

I met with a History professor a couple of years ago after working in an unrelated field post-undergrad.  As he put it, he started college when it was understood that you’d follow it through to a PhD, but it’s a lot more common now to see a working gap.  And, there’s a lot to be said for those who take that time and then really make the decision to get back into the field.

It might be marking a generational shift, but I'm sure it's becoming more common and I'd be surprised if anyone holds it against you. 

[iwearflowers]

I'm a 30 year old first-year PhD student. My path was a little more straightforward, as I went from undergrad to an MPH to a research position at a non-profit, but I think my age and experience made me a better, more focused candidate. I think I would take this meeting as a sign that this particular department was not a good fit for you rather than a sign that you shouldn't pursue a PhD at all.

[Sigaba]

FWIW, as an undergraduate, I participated in a program in which we worked as RAs and were exposed to a lot of chalk talk from graduate students. During a dinner held by graduate students, there was an informal discussion about the relative merits of going straight to graduate school from college and having time in between.

No consensus was reached. Some graduate students shared the view described by the professor in the OP. A couple of grads pointed out that time away from the Ivory Tower could make it harder to get back into an environment that can be infantilizing.

@NYCStudent, I recommend that you learn what you can from the professor's feedback. As written, your post does not communicate the conviction of someone committed to being a professional academic sociologist. You will be competing against applicants who have planned most of their lives to be academics. If you're on an admissions committee and making decisions that represent uncounted hours of work and tens of thousands of dollars, would you be more comfortable with applicants who were dedicated or with those who were committed?

I am not suggesting that you pretend to be someone you're not--because that will be spotted right away. I'm merely suggesting that you find ways to dial down the way you articulate your doubts and boost the signal on your ability to do the work because of your cumulative life experiences. (As a for instance, your work in student affairs will make you an excellent addition to any academic department, even as a graduate student.)

Wait. You picked sociology over history? Whatever.

[high_hopes]

On 10/26/2018 at 7:27 PM, Sigaba said:

Wait. You picked sociology over history? Whatever.

??? 

[Sigaba]

On 10/28/2018 at 11:38 AM, high_hopes said:

??? 

Forgot the smiley laughy face. ?

[KeyDoc]

I'm sorry the OP's conversation wen t the way it did. Honestly, the only thing that surprised me was how upfront and frank the professor was. Bias towards "undamaged goods" is real. I tell people that doing the straight academic track is the best strategy for getting a well-funded PhD program, but on a personal level I don't recommend it at all. You are missing out on a lot of life experiences and personal growth by doing 9-11 years of higher education all at once. I think in a way departments know this and that's why they offer nice funding packages to young applicants fresh out of their bachelor degrees, especially if it is all in house. They want the young to say yes.
 

I realize it sounds contradictory. Don't look for logic. The admissions process is an arcane ritual and I doubt most people on admissions teams know why they do what they do. It isn't arbitrary. The results are often predictable, but it isn't wholly conscious.

Edited November 1, 2018 by KeyDoc