"Non-Traditional" Grad School Applicants

[Reinventing]

The latter (working at the same university you are pursuing a degree,) from my experience, is a complete piece of cake. Honestly, people thought this was such a big deal, but if you've had a really high-stress career in the past like I did, it was a breeze, a cakewalk, a milk run, a walk in the park... a... another metaphor for something that is not difficult. University jobs are, from my experience, very laid-back and low-pressure compared to the other jobs out there, so taking classes at the same time just isn't very hard at all.

So if you get one of those tips on a university job that offers tuition remission, I really suggest you jump on it asap. Also, university jobs pay very badly, but the benefits are really good.

I've worked at several universities, and my experience (and the experience of my friends/co-workers) has not been the same.

I've commonly seen:

50-65 hour weeks

Low pay and long commutes (unable to afford even the smallest apartment nearby)

Late work hours that interfere with evening classes

Not being allowed to take classes certain semesters (making it hard or impossible to finish degree on time)

Not being allowed to take a class during the day, one day a week, even if you make up the hours later

Campuses that only allow full-time students to enroll in certain programs

Bosses getting angry about missing several hours of work to take a mid-term, a final or to give a presentation

Jealous co-workers who complain to the boss if your class does interfere with work

So, in general, a lack of flexibility and cooperation that I have heard exists in some environments for people pursuing a master's degree.

In my own case, one of the degree programs I was targeting was cancelled a month after I started work at one university. And at another school, the boss had to approve the degree program and plan first, which severely limited my options, and completely ruled out any programs on campus (and would have required an additional hour-long commute to a partner college).

I keep hoping I'll find a place where I can actually take advantage of the education benefit, but the process has not been as smooth as I hoped. In my case, I've learned not to assume it will be so straightforward at every university, and to be more strategic the next time around. Oh, and have a back-up plan or two, as well. It's frustrating when I reflect on how much I have give up financially, with some expectation of this benefit.

Edited February 10, 2011 by ruralworks4me

[Golden Monkey]

I've worked at several universities, and my experience (and the experience of my friends/co-workers) has not been the same. From working 50-60 hour weeks, with low pay and long commutes (unable to afford even the smallest apartment nearby), to late work hours that interfere with evening classes, the inability to leave work during the day to attend daytime classes on campus, bosses getting angry about missing several hours of work to take a final or to give a presentation, jealous co-workers, in general, a lack of flexibility and cooperation that I have heard exists in some environments for people pursuing a master's degree. On top of that, one of the degree programs I was targeting was cancelled a month after I started work at one university. I do keep hoping I'll find a place where I can actually take advantage of the education benefit, but the process has not been as smooth as I hoped.

No kidding? I guess we must have it pretty easy then. Whenever I work overtime, I get comp days off, and the job itself is really easy. It's just that it also pays really badly.

[Reinventing]

No kidding? I guess we must have it pretty easy then. Whenever I work overtime, I get comp days off, and the job itself is really easy. It's just that it also pays really badly.

I think it's all about the school/environment. I went to undergrad at a place where staffers took any classes they wanted to take, and their bosses were excited to announce So-and-so was getting a master's degree. I was expecting to find the same experience at the universities where I have worked; but I've ended up in places that are short-staffed, and where the bosses seem to resent (or don't understand) staff pursuing degrees.

Hmm, this reminds me, one of the schools I applied to for graduate studies actually asked if I planned to become a full-time employee. I wonder if that should concern me.

Edited February 10, 2011 by ruralworks4me

[mistborn]

hey. what you consider "non-traditional" is becoming more and more the norm. a lot of graduate students i know started at 27+ because they wanted to take a break from school, go out and get some industry experience, earn money to pay off college loans, whatever the reason may be, it is a valid one (unless all you did was sit at home and do nothing). so you actually won't feel out of place at all (btw i'm a senior in elec engr at a top 10 engr program so i know a lot of grad students).

you also have some advantages that students coming straight out of college don't: you are more mature and can handle pressure a lot better than undergrads can.

LORs don't have to be all academic. if you can, try and get 1 or 2 from your master's program professors. and also you want to make sure to get some from supervisors at the places you've worked in. unlike "traditional" applicants, your strong points are not your classes or interactions with professors, your strength is your vast industry experience (which is very useful because most PhDs in elec engr go on to work in industry, very few get into academia) so you want to draw on that. submit whatever professional accomplishments you received and they will make a very strong case. as to academics, the grad school will get you upto speed within the first couple of years with graduate coursework.

hope this helps and good luck!

[switch]

It's in bad form to say that age makes a difference in admissions but I am almost positive advanced ages--late 30s, 40s, 50s--definitely hurt applicants at the most competitive schools.

I almost never see non-trad students at the Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford graduate PhD programs, and I've seen some connection in my own application process. I've had some admissions reps pay lip service to "experience," "professional knowledge," etc. but the top programs value research skills by very young precocious minds.

At least, that's my two cents............... based on what I have read and observed.......................

[wtncffts]

<br />It's in bad form to say that age makes a difference in admissions but I am almost positive advanced ages--late 30s, 40s, 50s--definitely hurt applicants at the most competitive schools. <br /><br />I almost never see non-trad students at the Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford graduate PhD programs, and I've seen some connection in my own application process. I've had some admissions reps pay lip service to &quot;experience,&quot; &quot;professional knowledge,&quot; etc. but the top programs value research skills by very young precocious minds. <br /><br />At least, that's my two cents............... based on what I have read and observed.......................<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I know you explicitly stated this was anecdotal, but it would be interesting to see actual quantitative evidence on this question. All else equal, are older students rejected at a higher, statistically significant rate than others? I'm sure some data is out there somewhere. Personally, I'm skeptical that there is a significant difference. The vast majority of applicants, I think, are younger, and so it's not surprising that the vast majority of grad students are. There may also be a self-selection bias going on, I don't know: older applicants may apply to 'elite' schools at a lesser rate. I can imagine a number of reasons why that might be so, but that would just be speculation.

[switch]

<br /><br /><br />

I know you explicitly stated this was anecdotal, but it would be interesting to see actual quantitative evidence on this question. All else equal, are older students rejected at a higher, statistically significant rate than others? I'm sure some data is out there somewhere. Personally, I'm skeptical that there is a significant difference. The vast majority of applicants, I think, are younger, and so it's not surprising that the vast majority of grad students are. There may also be a self-selection bias going on, I don't know: older applicants may apply to 'elite' schools at a lesser rate. I can imagine a number of reasons why that might be so, but that would just be speculation.

Not to be Debbie Downer........ Remembering my information is anecdotal..............

I have visited a lot of medical admissions websites for non-trad students, and the stories of massive rejections and shut-outs of older applicants is PRETTY AMAZING. I heard of one older (50s) applicant getting 45 rejections. The ONE med school that accepted him was the one he had previously been a consultant or a dean or an engineer or someone with decent rank.

I read about an older (50s) woman in Canada going to medical school. Turns out her husband was a massive donor to the university. Go figure.

Medical schools seem to brutally discriminate on the basis of age..............

[Golden Monkey]

It's in bad form to say that age makes a difference in admissions but I am almost positive advanced ages--late 30s, 40s, 50s--definitely hurt applicants at the most competitive schools.

I almost never see non-trad students at the Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford graduate PhD programs, and I've seen some connection in my own application process. I've had some admissions reps pay lip service to "experience," "professional knowledge," etc. but the top programs value research skills by very young precocious minds.

At least, that's my two cents............... based on what I have read and observed.......................

Eh, I don't doubt this. I do wonder if they take career relevance into account, as opposed to someone who suddenly decides they want a 180-degree career change. For example, you can get a bachelor's degree in engineering (like I did,) then go work for many years as an engineer or some other closely related field, even getting a Professional Engineer's license, without ever getting a master's. So after 15 years of working as an engineer, is an adcomm at a graduate engineering program going to frown on your experience? I would hope not, but then again, I don't know, and I think it would be pretty sad if they did.

[OldGrad2012]

I am planning to apply to the PhD programs. I am 36 now. I got my master degree already. Am I too old for a PhD program at this stage of my life?

I started my master's at 40, so I'm pretty "non-traditional." My mom started hers at 50.

I have a bachelor's in mechanical engineering, then went out and worked for many years (doing all kinds of stuff,) got laid off at the age of 38 and realized I was at a complete career standstill. So I started my master's in a "new media" program at 40, got a job with the university, which got me extremely discounted tuition, finished the program at 43, and am now in the "waiting to hear from PhD programs" phase. In my case, both my master's degree and the PhD programs I've applied to are pretty closely related to the line of work I was doing for so many years, which I'm hoping works to my advantage.

Still it was admittedly kind of weird being the same age as most of the faculty.

[mandarin.orange]

I am planning to apply to the PhD programs. I am 36 now. I got my master degree already. Am I too old for a PhD program at this stage of my life?

I don't think so at all, though this may depend on your field.

My advisor-to-be said he accepted 2 out of 6 applicants to work with him. I met the other prospective during my visit, and he (like me) is in his 30s. In our cases, I think age and some world experience worked to our advantage...I have an MS, a decent list of publications and teaching experience; the other student has traveled, worked and freelanced extensively in a remote and politically volatile region where advisor-to-be wants to start some field research. I know my SOP was far better and much more focused than anything I would've written at age 24. I am also much more motivated, confident, a troubleshooter, know what I want out of grad school and have no desire to "languish" and take an extra year (or more) in a grad program, as I saw so many do when I was in my MS program in my 20s (with other twentysomethings). I think several grad programs recognize this and see it as an advantage.

[switch]

I don't think so at all, though this may depend on your field.

My advisor-to-be said he accepted 2 out of 6 applicants to work with him. I met the other prospective during my visit, and he (like me) is in his 30s. In our cases, I think age and some world experience worked to our advantage...I have an MS, a decent list of publications and teaching experience; the other student has traveled, worked and freelanced extensively in a remote and politically volatile region where advisor-to-be wants to start some field research. I know my SOP was far better and much more focused than anything I would've written at age 24. I am also much more motivated, confident, a troubleshooter, know what I want out of grad school and have no desire to "languish" and take an extra year (or more) in a grad program, as I saw so many do when I was in my MS program in my 20s (with other twentysomethings). I think several grad programs recognize this and see it as an advantage.

I'm talking about the very best top 15 programs. I never see non-traditional students in the PhD programs at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, CalTech, etc. I only see non-trad students in lower programs beyond the top 30 or top 50 rankings. And within those programs there are still some traditional professors who test non-trad students. For some non-trad students that is not a big deal, but for others the professor asks essentially, "What is wrong with you that made you such an older student?" There are still a lot of traditional professors especially in the top programs. And fields like mathematics, the sciences, revolve heavily around precocious views of intelligence. The Fields Medal, for example, is for the MATHEMATICIAN UNDER 30 who has accomplished whatever. There is an equivalent medal in economics. The TOP SCIENTISTS have to be PRECOCIOUS, NATURALLY SMART, BORN SMART, EARLY ACHIEVERS.

[AKJen]

I'm talking about the very best top 15 programs. I never see non-traditional students in the PhD programs at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, CalTech, etc. I only see non-trad students in lower programs beyond the top 30 or top 50 rankings. And within those programs there are still some traditional professors who test non-trad students. For some non-trad students that is not a big deal, but for others the professor asks essentially, "What is wrong with you that made you such an older student?"

I think it's very field dependent. In my top-ten PhD program in a social science discipline, it's pretty normal for people to have significant experience in another field before pursuing graduate study. I'm the oldest in my first year cohort at 31, but I'm not that much older. There are students in their 50s. I've seen very few people get into our program right from undergrad without significant and specific research experience.

[Golden Monkey]

For some non-trad students that is not a big deal, but for others the professor asks essentially, "What is wrong with you that made you such an older student?" T

I would answer that with, "what is wrong with you that made you have absolutely no industry experience?"

[switch]

I would answer that with, "what is wrong with you that made you have absolutely no industry experience?"

You think at a safe distance that you would make reasonable comments to a professor, but I am currently in a PhD program, and when my professors contradict themselves, make cynical comments, make paranoid comments, exaggerate for ideological effect, show biases, none of the students say anything to them. Most of the students stop thinking critically during classes with high ranking and tough professors. They are just too worried about their grades and their position in the classes. Often, some students don't understand that Prof. Tough said X last week and is saying Not X this week. It's been very rare in my first year as a PhD student for any student to confront a professor about giving an illogical, incoherent or contradictory response.

You think you will make the reasonable response to the professor now, but it's unlikely you will actually do so in the real situation.

So when the professor singles out the female student for her clothing or the non-traditional student for their age or "inability to handle theory" none of teh students respond to the sexism, racism, ageism or any other ism. At least not in my cohort. Ageism is ignored. Complicitly sanctioned.

I have non-trad students attacking me because they are all of one or two years younger than I am, so I am the non-trad compared to them. They don't notice the hypocrisy, the inconsistency in what they are doing.

Edited April 29, 2011 by switch

[switch]

You think at a safe distance that you would make reasonable comments to a professor, but I am currently in a PhD program, and when my professors contradict themselves, make cynical comments, make paranoid comments, exaggerate for ideological effect, show biases, none of the students say anything to them. Most of the students stop thinking critically during classes with high ranking and tough professors. They are just too worried about their grades and their position in the classes. Often, some students don't understand that Prof. Tough said X last week and is saying Not X this week. It's been very rare in my first year as a PhD student for any student to confront a professor about giving an illogical, incoherent or contradictory response.

You think you will make the reasonable response to the professor now, but it's unlikely you will actually do so in the real situation.

So when the professor singles out the female student for her clothing or the non-traditional student for their age or "inability to handle theory" none of teh students respond to the sexism, racism, ageism or any other ism. At least not in my cohort. Ageism is ignored. Complicitly sanctioned.

I have non-trad students attacking me because they are all of one or two years younger than I am, so I am the non-trad compared to them. They don't notice the hypocrisy, the inconsistency in what they are doing.

[SimilarlyDifferent]

You think at a safe distance that you would make reasonable comments to a professor, but I am currently in a PhD program, and when my professors contradict themselves, make cynical comments, make paranoid comments, exaggerate for ideological effect, show biases, none of the students say anything to them. Most of the students stop thinking critically during classes with high ranking and tough professors. They are just too worried about their grades and their position in the classes. Often, some students don't understand that Prof. Tough said X last week and is saying Not X this week. It's been very rare in my first year as a PhD student for any student to confront a professor about giving an illogical, incoherent or contradictory response.

I obviously can't speak for the discrimination that you are speaking of at the hands of a professor, but I would think that if it is too much of an issue that there should be someone you (or other students) could go to about it. Faculty are not omnipotent, after all. However, I have been in classrooms during undergrad when Professors have contradicted themselves and it is not as hard as you might think to call them out on it. My solution is to ask them about it, as if you think it was either an honest mistake, or there are circumstances that make the situation different.

Example:

Professor: The sky is always blue, it will always be blue.

One week later...

Professor: Ah yes, the sky... the sky is gray.

Student: Uh, Professor... in my notes last week, I have that you said the sky is always blue. Today you are saying the sky is gray. Why is different today than it was a week ago?

Yes, a silly example but, you get the point. In my experience one of two things will happen, either the prof will realize his mistake and clarify, or there really is a circumstance under which the sky can cease to be blue which he failed to mention before.

[emmm]

I have a friend in a masters program now who's my age ... 40s ... and she's gotten some flak from fellow students (not most of them, just a few). Her profs, however, have been delighted with her. She's competent and responsible and doesn't whine or need her hand held through everything. So, it's interesting. The faculty respond to her ability, but SOME classmates resent her because of her age and feel that she is taking opportunities that they should have been offered, and don't seem to be willing to accept that she's getting the offers because she's GOOD!

[michpc]

I have a friend in a masters program now who's my age ... 40s ... and she's gotten some flak from fellow students (not most of them, just a few). Her profs, however, have been delighted with her. She's competent and responsible and doesn't whine or need her hand held through everything. So, it's interesting. The faculty respond to her ability, but SOME classmates resent her because of her age and feel that she is taking opportunities that they should have been offered, and don't seem to be willing to accept that she's getting the offers because she's GOOD!

How obnoxious!