Is age a crucial factor?

[achimneyswallow]

I am wondering if age is a crucial factor when the committees determine to take one applicant or another. For those who aim to pursue academia career, age would have its correlation with competitiveness. The younger would get more attention when they apply for academic jobs...Is this correct?

[plisar]

Making a determination on age would be illegal, especially if you are worried that you are too old to start in academia...

[GirlattheHelm]

Actually, from all the hiring I've seen done here at my institution: they hire by age, race, religion, creed and sex. Why? Because they need to meet quota for equality with the Human Resource Center. It's illegal to not comply with that measure, which means you cannot ignore all those pesky factors in order to make a diverse group of teachers.

So, illegal or not, it's done to prove that, "We are equal, really!" In fact, it's stopped most Caucasians from even getting interviews in the last four departments I've seen hiring in since we, "have too many white people."

As far as my department is concerned; I've seen it vary. I work with a lot of graduate students because my advisor is co-chair of my anthropology department and a graduate program. The age range is between 20 - 70.... which is huge and not including the age of the zombie like auditors that take the classes as refreshers. Now, they more often then not give any of the research/academic jobs to graduate students of the 'fresh out of college' group - In fact in both labs I don't see anyone over 40 working in there, but there have been students around the age of 30-35 working there. Financial need, I have seen, is also another factor since the program loves to know if you have some kind of other moneys they can tap into to pay you rather than their budget ...

I wouldn't say age rules you out or keeps you in the game either, though. Capability is going to be the biggest thing when real 'work' is concerned. If it's manual labor intensive, can you pick up 50lbs repeatedly for however long necessary? Or if its research heavy, can you stay on task and get work done diligently rather than eat pencils or doodle the day through? Etc-etc. And hopefully you have past experience that proves whatever they need proven; especially if it's a graduate program. They don't like to train from the ground up every rotation.

But, granted, I just help steward the lab I work in and see what I see.

[engguy]

I am wondering if age is a crucial factor when the committees determine to take one applicant or another. For those who aim to pursue academia career, age would have its correlation with competitiveness. The younger would get more attention when they apply for academic jobs...Is this correct?

The short answer is no. Of course, age may or may not be a factor when it comes time to interview for a job -- as might race, gender, etc. -- but obviously this is not something you should be worried about at this point. Yes, schools tend to be enamored of very bright candidates fresh out of undergrad, but in my experience these are in the minority of admits --- the majority tend to be slightly older students who've either done a masters or had some other interesting side track before coming back for a higher degree. The bottom line is -- while the program may be sizing you up for a possible hire down the road -- the immediate concern is whether you'll finish the degree in a timely fashion. Age is not really a factor in this, and being a bit older with a proven track record might actually help.

[miratrix]

I've been told that if you want an academic job, it's best to finish your PhD by about 30. 30!! That basically means if you take a year or two off after undergrad, you'd better finish fast! You may join me in pretending that I never heard this, because of the number of people it shuts out.

I don't think the admissions committees are really thinking ahead to whether people will be viable candidates on the job market, though - if they were, we wouldn't have this glut of PhDs for a tiny number of tenure-track jobs. So it shouldn't be a factor at this point.

[mlle]

I am so confused by this thread. I have always heard people (e.g. adcom representatives, "how to get into grad school" literature, or whatever) say that going to grad school straight from college is not as attractive in an applicant compared to taking a few years off to get work experience or "fieldwork" experience, etc. (e.g. doing the peace corps or just having a regular job related to your discipline in grad school), or even going back mid-career. Or am I misunderstanding the conversation here? Especially in anthropology, the line of reasoning I picked up is that more experience (and hence, older) = more mature = a more capable/promising/committed candidate/applicant. Am I missing something or mistaken--or something?

*scratches head*

[UnlikelyGrad]

I've been told that if you want an academic job, it's best to finish your PhD by about 30. 30!! That basically means if you take a year or two off after undergrad, you'd better finish fast!

Hope this true story makes you feel better: my sister finished her PhD somewhere around 36 or 37, did 3 years of post-doc, and got a tenure-track position at a top-10 school. She did say she encountered age discrimination in the job market though. She has gone through enough of the process now that she can confidently say she's got a 99% chance of getting tenure. Woohoo!

I think of her often...if I do 3 years of post-doc, I expect to be 45 (!!!!) when I start looking for an academic position.