Older Applicants?

[NotMyParty]

I just stumbled upon this forum. What an interesting resource for PhD applicants! I'm in the process of getting things in order for a Fall 2013 application after an almost decade-long career in public service (I'm in my early 30's). Right now I'm looking at Sociology and Political Science departments for my graduate studies.

I realize that this isn't likely the best venue for my question, but I'm wondering if anyone knows how applications from older prospective students are viewed? Clearly, my undergraduate record will still matter. And of course I will have to show research interest and ability, along with all the usual components of an excellent PhD application..

What I'm more curious about is, all things being equal, if older applicants are viewed more favorably or less favorably in the admissions process? I realize all things are never equal, and I can also see decent arguments both for and against older students.

For example: On the one hand, I have all this great professional experience, project management experience, and independent research experience. I've proven I can succeed in long-term large-scale projects that simply aren't part of the portfolio of anyone coming straight from undergrad. Big plus for me, right? And yet, if merely acquiring more experience were some golden ticket to PhD admissions, we'd see pretty much no students being admitted to PhD programs straight out of undergrad. Which is clearly not the case. And I'm glad it's not!

I'm assuming a lot of people on this forum have been making the rounds of various sociology departments over the past few months. I'm wondering if someone can give me a sense of the age diversity of the cohorts in various programs. Does it vary by rank/type/subfield? Are there schools with a better reputation for age diversity than others? Are you an older student yourself? Do you feel comfortable with the age distribution of your cohort? If you're a younger student, do you feel like older students respect younger students?

Edited April 18, 2012 by SocialPoststructuralist

[Darth.Vegan]

My understanding is that older applicants are preferred and most definitely viewed favorably, others may have heard otherwise but that is my understanding. At least I hope so, I will be 29 when my applications are submitted and 30 when I matriculate.

[splitends]

From what I've seen, there's a pretty solid mix of people going straight through and people coming in with more work experience at top programs. When visiting schools as a prospective student, I have heard general agreement that the last couple years have had younger admits on average, though I'm sure that has more to do with the recession pushing more students into grad school earlier than they might otherwise apply than anything else.

But I'm sure admissions committees will see the same pros and cons that you do. There are a ton of benefits to having outside experience, and I think the best thing you can do is leverage those experiences and skills as much as possible in your applications. But, other than maybe having a bit more trouble than a recent graduate when it comes to getting letters of recommendation, I can't imagine you'd be at any disadvantage.

[Ladril]

I'm assuming a lot of people on this forum have been making the rounds of various sociology departments over the past few months. I'm wondering if someone can give me a sense of the age diversity of the cohorts in various programs. Does it vary by rank/type/subfield? Are there schools with a better reputation for age diversity than others? Are you an older student yourself? Do you feel comfortable with the age distribution of your cohort? If you're a younger student, do you feel like older students respect younger students?

I'm 35 and entering a top 20 program this Fall. I think my professional and research experience was a plus, but since I was also rejected by several programs, I can attest it's no golden ticket to anywhere. I also felt that writing good admissions essays was key.

The law does not allow American universities to discriminate on candidates based on age, so your age alone should not be a determining factor for admissions. However older applicants will need on average more funding than people in their twenties, due to increased responsibilities.

As for experiences inside the classroom, I cannot give any first hand ones yet, but I would not worry too much about it, especially if you're pursuing a doctoral degree.

[NotMyParty]

Thanks for the quick comments, guys! What I'm trying to get at here is, how are the standards different for someone who has been out of school for several years and thus can be presumed to have a professional life? I have to believe that the standards are different. Someone with a stellar undergraduate record who just sat on their ass in an office for 5 years would/should not be viewed as strongly as someone with the same *academic record* who manages a nonprofit to help earthquake victims in Haiti (or whatever). My point is that, even though our years of having to perform academically are supposedly behind us, I observe a lot of variance among the inclinations and abilities of my peers. Since the world outside academia is so amorphous in its possibilities, I have no idea what the baseline of expectations is/should be. Are older students expected to have published? To have reached a certain standard within their current chosen profession? Again, perhaps this is the wrong venue for my question.

I have several colleagues and friends from undergrad who are looking into PhD programs for next fall. From my perspective, our performance during the undergraduate years is so distant a memory as to be a relatively minor aspect of our application (though I know in reality it is still taken quite seriously). There is, instead, a TON of variation in what we have been able to accomplish in the intervening years. And little of it seems to map directly to undergraduate performance. On top of this, people tend to come to PhD programs in the social sciences with wildly different career backgrounds, most of which I imagine are quite unfamiliar to the academics on the admissions committee. And yet, the committee has so many more potential points for evaluation of older students than they do for someone whose record is a clean 4 years of undergraduate work. I see the task of the admissions committee as being quite difficult (and potentially riddled with errors of great magnitude) for "older" students.

[emmm]

You are still quite young. There are people your age in my program, and no one considers them old. As for me ... I am considered "old," but most people don't seem to mind (only one prof has commented), but I have a decade on you.

[NotMyParty]

You are still quite young. There are people your age in my program, and no one considers them old. As for me ... I am considered "old," but most people don't seem to mind (only one prof has commented), but I have a decade on you.

Why thank you!

I certainly didn't mean to imply that I thought I was at the top of the spectrum. But I'm pretty sure that students age 30+ are in the minority in most PhD programs.

[Darth.Vegan]

30+ is pretty common for a PhD in Sociology actually. You really don't find all too many 27 year old assistant professors.

[NotMyParty]

To be clear, my reference point is age at matriculation, not the age at which someone goes on the job market.

30+ is pretty common for a PhD in Sociology actually. You really don't find all too many 27 year old assistant professors.

[Darth.Vegan]

I understand. I was simply making the point that you won't be the only one in a particular age group at any given time in a program.

[jacib]

For people coming from something else, I think it's especially important that you come off as a "serious student" (not an early mid-life crisis person), because people really do care about your graduation prospects and your job prospects. If someone suspects you of potentially being a dilettante or otherwise not committed, they're not going to let you in. My dad is a sociology professor and when I applied to both religious studies programs and sociology programs, he wouldn't let me mention to the sociology programs that I was applying to religious studies programs. And the one department I did mention it to, the chair actually used that exact same word, "serious", and said "Administratively, you're free to apply to both the religion department here and the sociology department here. However, blah blah blah this might be seen as the mark of an unserious student." I didn't end up applying there.

Having had a career first, however, is not in itself a mark of unseriousness. If it relates to your research, I think it can be a serious bonus. I know several people who have spent 5+ in a career before joining a sociology PhD program, from a variety of backgrounds, including law, journalism, public policy/city government, and (all kinds of) business. Generally, their sociological interest is in some way related to their previous job, but it's not necessarily the same thing (so a lawyer would do something related to law, probably, even if they practiced, I don't know, family law and they're interested now in how law affects housing policy). I think last year the incoming cohort ranged from (approx) 22 to 35, my year from 23 to 32; that's normally the kind of range we get, I think we got roughly the same this year.

I can tell you this: at my school, once you get in, your chronological age matters a lot less than your cohort age. I have to sometimes remind myself about who's actually older and who's actually younger. The girl who is like my "big sister" in the program is actually my age and we graduated college the same year, but she went straight to grad school, so she's three cohorts ahead of me, and has taken me under my wing, looks out for me, gives me advice, all that good stuff. It's definitely a relationship though where she's "older". My "little sister" in the program, the kid I look out for and have "don't worry, everyone goes through this, kiddo" talks with, is like eight or nine years older than me (I think) but in most aspects of our relationship, I'm the "older" one. Think of as you will be "reborn in sociology". All the people in my cohort, from 23 to 32, are more or less peers. I don't know if that's the normal experience (I've heard it's different for people with childen, but that's a relative rarity around here), but that's definitely our experience here.

[Ladril]

Thanks for the quick comments, guys! What I'm trying to get at here is, how are the standards different for someone who has been out of school for several years and thus can be presumed to have a professional life? I have to believe that the standards are different. Someone with a stellar undergraduate record who just sat on their ass in an office for 5 years would/should not be viewed as strongly as someone with the same *academic record* who manages a nonprofit to help earthquake victims in Haiti (or whatever). My point is that, even though our years of having to perform academically are supposedly behind us, I observe a lot of variance among the inclinations and abilities of my peers. Since the world outside academia is so amorphous in its possibilities, I have no idea what the baseline of expectations is/should be. Are older students expected to have published? To have reached a certain standard within their current chosen profession? Again, perhaps this is the wrong venue for my question.

I believe admissions commitees for PhD programs are not going to put much emphasis on professional experience which is not related to research. Put bluntly, they are not going to care much how many children you saved from starving in Africa. This kind of experience will probably be more helpful if you are aiming at a professional degree in development studies or something similar.

Experience related to research will be taken seriously by them, independently of whether the research is done in a university, a government institution, a think-tank or a research firm. It will be extremely helpful if you can tell them how your research experience ties in with your interest to do doctoral-level research.

I do not mean to say that professional experience is useless. If you can weave an interesting story on how your past work experience led you to your current research interests, and reflect that in the admissions essay, it will be a plus.

[tt503]

I just stumbled upon this forum. What an interesting resource for PhD applicants! I'm in the process of getting things in order for a Fall 2013 application after an almost decade-long career in public service (I'm in my early 30's). Right now I'm looking at Sociology and Political Science departments for my graduate studies.

I realize that this isn't likely the best venue for my question, but I'm wondering if anyone knows how applications from older prospective students are viewed? Clearly, my undergraduate record will still matter. And of course I will have to show research interest and ability, along with all the usual components of an excellent PhD application..

What I'm more curious about is, all things being equal, if older applicants are viewed more favorably or less favorably in the admissions process? I realize all things are never equal, and I can also see decent arguments both for and against older students.

For example: On the one hand, I have all this great professional experience, project management experience, and independent research experience. I've proven I can succeed in long-term large-scale projects that simply aren't part of the portfolio of anyone coming straight from undergrad. Big plus for me, right? And yet, if merely acquiring more experience were some golden ticket to PhD admissions, we'd see pretty much no students being admitted to PhD programs straight out of undergrad. Which is clearly not the case. And I'm glad it's not!

I'm going to be 31 when I matriculate (hopefully in the fall 2013). I don't know how much "age" would play a factor in admissions. Generally speaking, I don't really think it's like law school where they admit a huge wave of cookie-cutter applicants, so they need to 'diversify' the applicant pool. I've heard positive things for older applicants (e.g. they seem to know how to manage time/responsibilities better, they are more focused) and negative things (e.g. the job market will be tougher because as one colleague said, "who wants to hire a 40 year old when they can invest more into a career of a 30 year old?").

I think being older has made me a more competitive applicant, with two master's degrees under my belt and loads of teaching experience. However, there are a lot of impressive undergraduates out there. Personally, if I was on an adcom, I'd select me over any undergrad ten times out of ten, but that might just be my own bias creeping into it. ;-)

[obsessovernothing]

I believe admissions commitees for PhD programs are not going to put much emphasis on professional experience which is not related to research. Put bluntly, they are not going to care much how many children you saved from starving in Africa. This kind of experience will probably be more helpful if you are aiming at a professional degree in development studies or something similar. Experience related to research will be taken seriously by them, independently of whether the research is done in a university, a government institution, a think-tank or a research firm. It will be extremely helpful if you can tell them how your research experience ties in with your interest to do doctoral-level research. I do not mean to say that professional experience is useless. If you can weave an interesting story on how your past work experience led you to your current research interests, and reflect that in the admissions essay, it will be a plus.

Landril, I think the contrary: NGO work and non-profit managerial experience, in terms of sociology programs, is viewed in a separate light than other professional experience. For instance, a person who goes into the Peace Corps and does volunteer work for some time, even if it is outside their research area, would definitely have a competitive advantage over someone who, let's say, held a sales position for the last couple of years. Thus, put more politely, I think admissions committees are going to care how many starving children in Africa you have saved. This tells more about someones character than their personal statement or other parts of their application. Research experience is not the only experience that will help you get your foot into a sociology graduate program, other (professional) experience is valued too. That is, even if such experience cannot be 'weaved' into your particular research interests or career goals.

Edited April 22, 2012 by waiting*it*out

[Ladril]

Landril, I think the contrary: NGO work and non-profit managerial experience, in terms of sociology programs, is viewed in a separate light than other professional experience. For instance, a person who goes into the Peace Corps and does volunteer work for some time, even if it is outside their research area, would definitely have a competitive advantage over someone who, let's say, held a sales position for the last couple of years. Thus, put more politely, I think admissions committees are going to care how many starving children in Africa you have saved. This tells more about someones character than their personal statement or other parts of their application. Research experience is not the only experience that will help you get your foot into a sociology graduate program, other (professional) experience is valued too. That is, even if such experience cannot be 'weaved' into your particular research interests or career goals.

I may have been exaggerating a bit for the sake of argument and effect, but having been through this process, I can tell you there is no single element that will guarantee you admission to a graduate program (I did not save any children in Africa, mind you). If you go to the Peace Corps, do it because it's the right thing for you, not because you believe it's going to be a sure ticket to a graduate program. It most likely won't.

[SocViv]

I understand. I was simply making the point that you won't be the only one in a particular age group at any given time in a program.

That might be true for the overall program (since some people take like 10 years straight through to finish their PhD), but in my program, I felt really old coming in from the business world at age 27 and married because most of the other students in my cohort were 20-23, single, and maybe worked for one year at some nonprofit. It was really a culture shock to have people who acted like college kids as peers after working professionally for 5 years. I imagine coming in in your early 30s would be just as much, if not more, of a culture shock. You spend most of your time in classes with your cohort your first couple years, and it will be an adjustment if your cohort is just out of undergrad.

So it really depends on the university. My hunch is that programs in larger cities have "older" students because there will be opportunities for partners to find jobs in larger cities (obvs if you don't have a partner, this isn't a concern).

I also agree there's not overt age discrimination, but I will add that in my experience, professors have no freaking clue what people do outside of academia. It's pretty much irrelevant to your application. It's like that part of your application is in Klingon. The only way they can understand it is if you frame it in terms of sociological theories, like, "I saw inequalities first hand.. bla bla bla resources bla bla institutionalized discrimination bla bla." That's how your experience can be a benefit.. but it may not be more of a benefit than some 21 year old who spent a summer in Kenya and says the same thing. And again, that's just my experience. It could be different at other places.