Is 30 too late to start a PhD?

[stacktrace]

I had an interview a couple of days ago and the professor mentioned that I am older than most of their applicants. I had to explain that I did not waste my time after I graduated and all. I am 30 now and I want to start a PhD in one of California's top schools (Stanford, Berkeley, UCSD, Caltech.. ) in biomedical informatics. I was just wondering if the adcomms from those universities put so much importance on your age. Is 30 already too late to start a PhD? I don't see it that way, but I would like to hear other people's opinions.

[Strangefox]

I had an interview a couple of days ago and the professor mentioned that I am older than most of their applicants. I had to explain that I did not waste my time after I graduated and all. I am 30 now and I want to start a PhD in one of California's top schools (Stanford, Berkeley, UCSD, Caltech.. ) in biomedical informatics. I was just wondering if the adcomms from those universities put so much importance on your age. Is 30 already too late to start a PhD? I don't see it that way, but I would like to hear other people's opinions.

No, it's definetely not too late. Have a look at this thread:

[cogscipixie]

I had an interview a couple of days ago and the professor mentioned that I am older than most of their applicants. I had to explain that I did not waste my time after I graduated and all. I am 30 now and I want to start a PhD in one of California's top schools (Stanford, Berkeley, UCSD, Caltech.. ) in biomedical informatics. I was just wondering if the adcomms from those universities put so much importance on your age. Is 30 already too late to start a PhD? I don't see it that way, but I would like to hear other people's opinions.

I strongly disagree. My aunt started her PhD at 36 in molecular medicine, graduated in 4.5 years, and made her way to tenure after 6 years in a clinical/translational medicine faculty position at U of New Mexico. I'm starting my PhD this fall hopefully and I will have just turned 25. I look very young though, so I should be just fine by the time I finish at 30-31.

Overall, never let your age stop you from working on your goals.

[stacktrace]

Thank you, Strangefox!

Indeed, the majority of the people are in their mid-twenties, but there were some notable exception. There was a person who was 30 and got admitted to Caltech with full funding. This gives me hope:) Anyway, do younger applicants have any true advantage?

[Strangefox]

Anyway, do younger applicants have any true advantage?

You mean, would adcoms prefer them only because of the age? I don't think so.

[newms]

I'll be turning 30 (gasp) in the Fall so I don't think its too late. A prof I met with last August pointed out that I was older than most applicants, but he said that could be an advantage since most people who start in their early 20s don't have a firm idea of what they want to study and change their minds often, he said.

[Eigen]

Being older can be beneficial in some fields- you'll be taken more seriously.

I have a friend in Theoretical Chemistry, and his PI tells him not to bother rushing, he won't be taken seriously in academia (in his area) until his mid-30s.

[stacktrace]

I also feel it that way. Being at 30, I am much more confident about the things I want to do. Also, I worked in the industry for several years after graduation and I collected relevant experience. I think that this makes me even more competitive.

[natsteel]

You mean, would adcoms prefer them only because of the age? I don't think so.

Absolutely not. But, I should qualify that by adding "within reason." At least in the Humanities, candidates that are in their 50s or older may be at a slight disadvantage because of their age, because they are highly unlikely to ever get a TT job. But, even if that is so, I think it would be program/department-specific. But I know a number of professors that went to top history programs like Stanford, N'western, Penn, and Columbia when they were in their 30s. I certainly don't think a 21-year old has any inherent advantage over a 35-year old.

[MoJingly]

Back in the day (well, last year) I interviewed for med school. Med school is different than grad school for a bunch of reasons, but I specifically remember one comment by the Dean that applies in this situation. There are some people that apply for med school in their 40s and even later. The dean said that, from a financial standpoint, it doesn't make much sense to train a doctor that is only going to be able to practice half the amount of time as a younger applicant. But he said the difference is compensated for in the enrichment that students with life experience bring to the academic body. It's well worth it, he said, to train a doctor that will not be practicing for 50 years because you know they will approach medicine with life experience, maturity, and wisdom.

I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it.

[socialpsych]

Is 30 too late to start a PhD?-- absolutely not. And it is not too late to get in to a top program, either.

Will your age put you at a disadvantage in the admissions process relative to people in their early to mid 20s?-- sadly, it could. Don't be scared of this; just be prepared. Remember that, depending on your field, what they are looking for is "safe bet" students who are likely to survive the program and succeed on the job market, so to the extent that you can use your experience and maturity to make yourself seem like one of those, I don't think your age has to hurt you.

[Strangefox]

Will your age put you at a disadvantage in the admissions process relative to people in their early to mid 20s?-- sadly, it could.

Why do you think so?

[socialpsych]

Why do you think so?

Just from hearing people talk about it. I was first exposed to it as conventional wisdom among applicants, but I have heard it from people who actually work in admissions too. Feel free to take with a grain of salt though.

[Golden Monkey]

I had an interview a couple of days ago and the professor mentioned that I am older than most of their applicants. I had to explain that I did not waste my time after I graduated and all. I am 30 now and I want to start a PhD in one of California's top schools (Stanford, Berkeley, UCSD, Caltech.. ) in biomedical informatics. I was just wondering if the adcomms from those universities put so much importance on your age. Is 30 already too late to start a PhD? I don't see it that way, but I would like to hear other people's opinions.

Well, ha, I sure hope not! I'm 43 and am applying to PhD programs right now. Though in my case, all of my industry experience is (extremely) relevant to the programs I applied to, so it isn't like I suddenly changed directions at my age. I suppose the way I see it is that I'm applying to get a degree in an academic version of something I've already been doing for a living for 15+ years.

Though whether or not they'll see it the same way remains to be seen, I guess.

[singlecell]

I'm 30 too, and I've gotten two interviews. I am ready to answer questions about why I am a bit older than some other applicants, but I don't expect it will hurt my chances of acceptance. I was definitely not mature enough for the rigors of grad school at 22...

[reimaginethis]

I'm 34 and am currently a first year Ph.D. student at a top-tier university (interdisciplinary / social science program). I have full funding, insurance, and a generous travel award. Age should not be a barrier. If you're motivated, go for it. I am surprised that a professor would even bring up the age issue -- especially since you're still in the admissions process. That can (theoretically) open the door to all kinds of problems for the university in the future.

During the application/admissions process, no one mentioned my age to me. Since arriving on campus, however, there have been several subtle remarks regarding my age -- none negative. My advisor knows that because I'm older and have a family, I don't want to dilly-dally and take forever to complete the program. Having that understanding has helped me tremendously.

[sputnik]

I am 30 and applying to PhD programs. My MA advisor told me that my age will help me in two ways: my GRE scores will be taken with a grain of salt because they know I've been out of the classroom for awhile and that the extensive experience I gained in the field will set me apart from the straight-through crowd. I found this last part to prove true at an open house. When we all introduced ourselves I had profs there wanting to talk to me afterward about my experiences at work. it seemed to set me apart in a good way. On the GRE thing, only time will tell. I was 99th percentile in verbal and 34th in quant. Yeah. Cough. My advisor said the quant won't hurt me as bad because of my age. So cheers to being 30 and let's hope he's right!

[philo-Sophia]

never too late to learn~~

and i agree that many students who start PHD at a very young age are not firm enough because they don't see how the society and the outside world really work ,and many of them are likely to cast doubt on their decision of studying for a PHD.I've worked for one year after graduation because I was not sure about whether I wanted a job or to continue my studying.

Then I went back to the campus because I got to know what kind of life I really want to live. So I've made up my mind to study for a PHD.I will be 28 when I start it.

[Curca]

I'm 34 and applying to a PhD program. I have experience in the field as a teacher and I am hoping that they will see my age as an advantage.

[Golden Monkey]

I am 30 and applying to PhD programs. My MA advisor told me that my age will help me in two ways: my GRE scores will be taken with a grain of salt because they know I've been out of the classroom for awhile and that the extensive experience I gained in the field will set me apart from the straight-through crowd. I found this last part to prove true at an open house. When we all introduced ourselves I had profs there wanting to talk to me afterward about my experiences at work. it seemed to set me apart in a good way. On the GRE thing, only time will tell. I was 99th percentile in verbal and 34th in quant. Yeah. Cough. My advisor said the quant won't hurt me as bad because of my age. So cheers to being 30 and let's hope he's right!

Well, as a 43-year-old with absolutely dismal GRE scores, I guess that's good to hear. Then again, even when I was back in the classroom, I was terrible at standardized tests, so the "out of practice" excuse doesn't really apply anyway. The really laughable part is that I have an engineering degree and years of work experience as an engineer, but my quantitative score was the worst of the three parts.

[singlecell]

On the flip side, I know a gentleman in my current lab- he is probably about 55 years old, and looks it (full gray beard and all). He attended a neurobiology PhD open house at a state university. In a casual sit-down with a professor, he was asked point blank how old he was. When he answered truthfully, the professor said something to the effect of, "You have to be kidding. There is no chance for you to get in here."

Part of that is the field of neuro, which is highly competitive. I think there is also that issue of investing so much money into a PhD student, and wanting to get a return on that investment, in the form of several years of research and/or teaching.

I still feel pretty bad for him, but maybe that Prof did him a favor. He can save himself the application fee and not get his hopes up.

[summer_reader]

I'm in my 40's and applying to PhD programs for the upcoming academic year. Last year, one school flat out told me I was too old to starting studying at the MA level. Regardless I was accepted to one school (I only applied to three) and I am loving the program. Although age discrimination is alive and well in the academy I would recommend you apply regardless. Follow your dream and don't let the naysayers drag you down.

Edited January 14, 2011 by summer_reader

[NadaJ]

On the flip side, I know a gentleman in my current lab- he is probably about 55 years old, and looks it (full gray beard and all). He attended a neurobiology PhD open house at a state university. In a casual sit-down with a professor, he was asked point blank how old he was. When he answered truthfully, the professor said something to the effect of, "You have to be kidding. There is no chance for you to get in here."

*Walks to my HR soapbox*

I have to brush up on my title 6, but even so, this is utterly ridiculous.

*Steps down from HR soapbox*

[Golden Monkey]

I guess I would hope that what exactly one spent those years out of school doing and how it was related to the program would be a factor. If you spent 15 years being a Tax Accountant, then suddenly decided you wanted a PhD in English Literature or something, I can see how that might work against you, but I'm hoping that ones relevant work experience comes into play.

The first thing I wanted adcomms to look at was my resume, then my master's thesis, then my grades from my master's program.... and then my dismal undergrad grades, and then I wanted them not to look at my GRE scores at all.

[NadaJ]

LOL @ Golden Monkey..my preferred adcomm review of my materials are similar:

SOP, LORs, Grad School GPA, CV, and because the aforementioned items are so awesome, not even bother to look at my undergrad GPA and certainly not my GRE scores **shudders**

[crayolacat]

I'm mid-30s and if I get in I would be so much better at this in uncountable ways than I would have been at 21. At 21, I should have been simply ordered not to think for at least five years! Anyway, one my choice schools, a tippy-top school in my field, has a current graduate student that I figure must be in his 50s- he got his BA in the early 1970s.