I'm older and okay with that.

[Portia]

Why is tenure so important? I mean, I get the job stability bit, but, to me it isnt that important. But then again, I will ake two years off work when I have a baby, so maybe I am lazy.

[Swagato]

I guess because I've always had a particular vision of the PhD itself. This ideal is, of course, under heavy attack today as we all know. Still, that doesn't mean I've changed my vision--it has just gotten a lot more difficult.

[Strong Flat White]

In my humble opinion, bfat says sorry yet has nothing whatsoever to apologize for. Swagato is in full admiration and simply hopes that the oldies know what they are getting themselves into. That was after asking "Why?" with so much concern regarding the putative disadvantages (which Swagato seems to know so much about) that come with age. I appreciate bfat's laudably diplomatic overture about the grumpiness that comes with turning 30, but for my own part, there is nothing helpful about this olive branch, only good-humored essentialism that does me (for example) a disservice. But nevermind.  Let's continue in the spirit of good will. Allow me to reciprocate Swagato's courtesy. Let me ask "Why?", full of tender concern...wait, no.  Because of my age, I am full of a seasoned wisdom that tells me it is none of my fucking business. I'll just hope with bated breath that the PhD-to-tenure-track trajectory of Swagato's life has no unexpected detours on the horizon. Because, goodness me, those are some "significant disadvantages" that I (in all my 33 youthful summers) happen to know something about. Or are they advantages, rather? Hmm, I guess it depends on how you view the process of changing as a person.

[Swagato]

Welp. It would appear some amongst us cannot confront a genuine, if somewhat provocative question without becoming needlessly snarky. 

 

I think I've clarified the intent of my original question enough. Take it for what it's worth, or don't; either way it's no skin off my back. We're all aware of what we're getting into. Good luck to us all. 

[BunnyWantsaPhD]

I really wonder how much age is an issue though. Like, if someone is on the market at 28 versus someone on the market at 38--are they really gonna chose one over the other because of age (all other factors being equal). For whatever reason, I find that hard to believe. Most of the professors I see around campuses are no spring chickens themselves--and, they seem to retire way later than people in other professions. I guess I've just always seen academia as different--as almost ageless because of the kind of work that we do. I understand that departments might prefer someone who is fresh on the market--but, if you're fresh on the market at 45, then you're still fresh on the market. Maybe I'm just being naive...

 

On a related note, my mother got her PhD when she was in her 50s and just got hired for a tenure track job at the age of 60. She wasn't going to let go of her dreams because of her age. If you are passionate about something, then I say go for it. 

 

I'm also against this whole idea that our lives don't really start till we get that tenure track job. No one really said that, but the implication is there. In my opinion, being a scholar is my life, no matter what stage of a scholar I am at--whether as a MA student, PhD Student, fixed-term faculty member, or tenure track professor--they're all varying degrees of the same thing. I understand wanting to be settled and established, but I guess it's just not my priority. Give me the opportunity to teach and do research and I'll be happy. 

[smellybug]

To clarify, there was no patronising intent in my original post. I am genuinely in admiration of those who choose to pursue the doctoral project regardless of age, in full cognizance of the fact that it does put them at a significant disadvantage.

 

Are the interviewers going to ask to see my driver's license? Or birth certificate? And then interview me differently? No, they'll have no idea how old I am. I don't look any different than my peers. What they will see is a wealth of maturity and experience that my peers may not necessarily have.

Edited May 1, 2013 by smellybug

[1Q84]

Are the interviewers going to ask to see my driver's license? Or birth certificate? And then interview me differently? No, they'll have no idea how old I am. I don't look any different than my peers. What they will see is a wealth of maturity and experience that my peers may not necessarily have.

 

I think I kind of understand all the vitriol being directed at swagato (the original post did seem have a undercurrent of "pity the old folk," intentional or not) but I think it's also a legitimate concern.

 

No, the interviewers won't ask for your birth date. But they can take one look at your undergraduate dates and know how old you are. Easy as that.

 

I think age discrimination does and will exist on hiring committees, unfortunately enough, and that's why I'm riddling with anxiety about finishing my Ph.D at 35-36. In a perfect world, the 58 year old hiree would be seen exactly the same way as the 28 year old but I really don't think that's the case.

 

Either way, I think it should be something that older candidates should be prepared to face. The responses I've seen so far have ranged from willfully ignorant ("Who do they think they are? They can't judge me!") to naive at best ("I am a scholar and nothing else in the world matters!")

 

I was reading through and most responses bordered on "follow your dreams" pixie dust fluff. I mean, a certain level of passion is certainly required but I think a few years of crushingly awful teaching for a few bucks will quickly resolve that. I don't see the need to be so overly rosy about a situation that will clearly be extremely, extremely difficult, and as swagato rightly points out, probably much more so with age.

Edited May 1, 2013 by 1Q84

[emmm]

I started my program at age 43. I don't intend to go into academia, and, in fact, I don't have any plans yet for what I want to do when I'm done with school. Right now I am trying to enjoy the experience (as much as possible), learn as much as I can, and actually be useful in my research group so I don't feel as though my advisor is wasting his money.  It's always tough being the newest, most inexperienced person around, even when you are "old." I just started with this group, so I guess it will take some time to get going, and, overall, I'm really glad to be doing things that are challenging and intriguing again.

[smellybug]

They'll be able to count backwards to determine age if you began your undergrad when you were 18, that is... It's not vitriol (and sorry if it seemed snarky--I sat for the spirit suck that is the qualifying exam yesterday) but a serious question: assuming you entered the academic world later in life, how on earth would they know your age?

So much speculation. The youngsters among us will have a tough time. The older folks will, too. Maybe it'll be a strike against me that I'm slightly older, but even if I weren't older I'd be worried. I think we're all pretty prepared for what we're getting into here. Plus those magic beans that I put under my pillow every night have failed to change my DOB like the gypsy said they would, so I'm low on options here.

Edited May 2, 2013 by smellybug

[BunnyWantsaPhD]

I think I kind of understand all the vitriol being directed at swagato (the original post did seem have a undercurrent of "pity the old folk," intentional or not) but I think it's also a legitimate concern.

 

 

Either way, I think it should be something that older candidates should be prepared to face. The responses I've seen so far have ranged from willfully ignorant ("Who do they think they are? They can't judge me!") to naive at best ("I am a scholar and nothing else in the world matters!")

 

I was reading through and most responses bordered on "follow your dreams" pixie dust fluff. I mean, a certain level of passion is certainly required but I think a few years of crushingly awful teaching for a few bucks will quickly resolve that. I don't see the need to be so overly rosy about a situation that will clearly be extremely, extremely difficult, and as swagato rightly points out, probably much more so with age.

I definitely can see how the "follow your dreams" mantras can sound naive. But at the same time, I don't see myself in any other career path. So, I'm a few years older, am I really supposed to abandon my passions because it might make it a little harder for me to get tenure? Or because I might never get tenure and always make a little less money? I mean, if I wanted to make money, I certainly wouldn't be going to graduate school in the humanities. I think that we all get that this profession is a rough road...I just don't see how age is going to be another factor that's supposed to deter someone if this is really, truly what they want to do with their lives.

If this career path is so daunting, one would think that having the "pixie dust" follow your dreams attitude would be necessary--you better be passionate about something if you're willing to put so many years into it with no guarantees of your dream job. 

[1Q84]

They'll be able to count backwards to determine age if you began your undergrad when you were 18, that is... It's not vitriol (and sorry if it seemed snarky--I sat for the spirit suck that is the qualifying exam yesterday) but a serious question: assuming you entered the academic world later in life, how on earth would they know your age?

So much speculation. The youngsters among us will have a tough time. The older folks will, too. Maybe it'll be a strike against me that I'm slightly older, but even if I weren't older I'd be worried. I think we're all pretty prepared for what we're getting into here. Plus those magic beans that I put under my pillow every night have failed to change my DOB like the gypsy said they would, so I'm low on options here.

 

Well, I think the vitriol I was referring to was mostly coming from Strong Flat White. But anyway...

 

Assuming you entered the academic world later in life, I would think that they would be able to visually surmise your age.

 

But the last part of what you said is what I'm referring to as a problem: many people aren't prepared for what they're getting into.

 

I definitely can see how the "follow your dreams" mantras can sound naive. But at the same time, I don't see myself in any other career path. So, I'm a few years older, am I really supposed to abandon my passions because it might make it a little harder for me to get tenure? Or because I might never get tenure and always make a little less money? I mean, if I wanted to make money, I certainly wouldn't be going to graduate school in the humanities. I think that we all get that this profession is a rough road...I just don't see how age is going to be another factor that's supposed to deter someone if this is really, truly what they want to do with their lives.

If this career path is so daunting, one would think that having the "pixie dust" follow your dreams attitude would be necessary--you better be passionate about something if you're willing to put so many years into it with no guarantees of your dream job. 

 

I agree with the first bit of what you said. I don't have any problem with following your dreams. I think rather that many people are saying "follow your dreams" without any real consideration of not being able to pay rent under tens of thousands of dollars of debt or wasting a decade scraping by on a stipend and not saving for retirement. These are real problems that we'll all have to face, which many (though not all) "follow your dreamers" think will conveniently solve themselves as they sit in the stacks inhaling old book smell.

[Epigrammatic]

I'll be applying for PhD programs in the fall as I finish my masters thesis. If all the stars align, I'll be starting my PhD at age 42, so I guess that puts me in the geriatric ward. To answer the original question, I'd bet money that there are far more of us old codgers pursuing PhD's than you might think. Not a thing wrong with it, and I personally couldn't do it any other way.

 

After getting my BA, I wanted nothing to do with graduate school. I landed a help desk job that developed into a software developer career. I make pretty good money doing it and the job is about as stable as anyone can expect given the current economic climate. The problem? I burned out about ten years ago -- and I'm still doing it.

 

I took a few English classes a few years back at a local university because I was listless and I missed academia. At the time I didn't realize how much. I eventually decided I had to give the tenured professor schtick a shot or I'd regret it.

 

I say all this because I'm aware of the odds, and to say that they are daunting is like standing in a mosh pit and saying, "Gee, this is loud." I figure that knowing exactly what I want, including a very specific research focus, helps mitigate the risks somewhat, but that just makes what I want to do slightly less ridiculous. That said, I'm not quite huffing the magic pixie dust either, since I know I can convert the PhD into a technical writing/editing gig with my previous software experience or (worst case) go back to software development. There are options, and I sorely need a change. I'm sure not happy doing what I'm doing now. So to answer Swagato, this is why I'm forging ahead with this insanity.

 

I think it's important to go for broke and do everything in your power to pursue what you love. But plan B's, as cliche as they are, help take some of the pressure from plan A's. And anything that makes a plan A more viable is a good thing.

[Rust&Stardust]

None of us oldies are inexperienced and naive about the way the world works.  In fact, those 'disadvantages' of beginning a PhD program 'late in life' (ha!) are merely just another set of disadvantages that have plagued most of us oldies all our lives.  I wasn't able to begin college right after high school.  I grew up poor and attended a high school that didn't even encourage its students to pursue higher education.  My family didn't either, and I immediately went to work.  If I'd been asked to define what a scholarship meant at that time, I wouldn't have been able to.  None of that was part of my world.

 

In my early twenties, I began to long for something more and seriously considered the idea of community college.  However, I didn't work up the courage to attend until my mid-twenties.  Over the next decade, I attended steadily but could usually only take two classes a semester due to my work schedules.  In my early thirties, I began a well-paying career around the same time I transferred to a university to finish my upper-division work.  Despite the money I made, my college career began taking precedence; I loved it more than my job.  When I finished, I missed it so much that I began pursuing my MA.  It's the most satisfying accomplishment of my life, and--yes--my passion.

 

Interestingly, despite my PhD admission committee's knowledge of my age, they awarded me a prestigious fellowship.  I may be the oldest member of my cohort...but I have the best funding package.  I take this as a vote of confidence in my abilities (and recognition that I won't be succumbing to dementia anytime soon) despite the ageism that admittedly exists all around us.  And maybe life experiences and the accompanying maturity counts for something.

 

All I know is that I look damn good for my age (I'm routinely told I look at least ten years younger; this has been the case throughout my life), and my expertise just keeps growing.  I feel like I'm doing pretty good for someone who wasn't even supposed to get into college in the first place, and that's satisfying in every way.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Rust&Stardust

[lisajay]

*applause!!*

[BlueSiren]

The only question that I have to you folk over 30 (and in some cases around 35) is: why?

 

Are you doing the PhD as a passion project? If so, hats off and my congratulations--I love your spirit. Are you doing it in hopes of a traditional academic career afterward? If so, my congratulations again--I'm not sure I could stand the odds. You're looking at 5-7 years to complete (effectively placing yourself at or near 40). Then you're looking at a year or two of postdocs, and then you begin on the tenure track (at or near age 42-43). You're looking at something like 50 by the time you're tenured. This is in a market that will be full of PhDs at or near 30 (if I finish in 6 years, I will be 32, and I already think that's on the older side). Wouldn't there be a distinct advantage to being younger, or at least, within the usual age range?

I am 37 and starting my PhD program in Literature this fall. I do hope to have a traditional academic career when I'm done, but realize that I have other options. I received an MA in History when I was 31 and worked for a number of years in that field (as a research historian for a well known firm) before returning to pursue my MA in Literature. I originally started this second MA in the hopes of teaching at a community college (following my first MA I received interviews for spots at a variety of two year colleges but never received a job offer; when I inquired the reasoning I was told that most community colleges prefer two MAs). I am doing this because this is what I love to do and if I am unable to find a tenured position I hope to teach at a better community college and if that doesn't work out I could always return to being an historian. Like many others who are pursuing an advanced degree later in life I focused on other matters when I was young. I have two high school age children, took lengthy breaks to finish my BA, and worked a number of non-professional jobs in my twenties. In some ways, I think that I have more at stake in my PhD program and a greater appreciation for the academic world.

[smellybug]

One thing that’s worth mentioning, and something that I think comes up indirectly or directly in all of the old timers' posts: Life is not a straight shot from point A to point B. Or, at least in my opinion, life is a windy, confusing set of divergent paths, and each turn of the way highlights something new about the traveler. If I had married my first love or gotten a PhD in what I was interested in at 18, oh, man. Good thing I took some years to figure it out. Life should not be about the pot of (tenured) gold at the end of the (academic) rainbow. Those of us "non-traditional" applicants have taken time out from the straight and narrow to hold unique jobs, travel, start families, maybe fuck up a bit, change life paths several times, and all of this has brought us back to academia with a fierce determination to make it a life. This is not the only life we have led, so, as BlueSiren rightly points out, we have a unique appreciation for it, even knowing the difficulty inherent in starting a PhD later in life. When the POI at my top university told me that my "non-traditional" status made me attractive to the admissions committee, I was a bit thrown off. I have never thought of myself as older or academically disadvantaged, but I am. And, like BlueSiren, my status made me interesting. In each of the interviews I did, the more I talked about my past in and out of academia, the more fascinated the interviewer became. I don't know if this will translate to the job market, but if it doesn't, there are, for me, other options. Obviously, I would prefer to have all the intellectual acumen, life experience, and emotional maturity I have now at 30 in the body of a 24-year-old. Certainly that would make this all easier. But since that's not an option, I have what I have now. And maybe this is a little too fluffy for some, but I think it's most important to develop as a human being. A career pales in comparison to that.

[somethinbruin]

Smellybug, can we be friends? 

[smellybug]

Smellybug, can we be friends? 

 

Sure, pal. There's plenty of bug to go around. 

[Imogene]

The other thing that I was thinking about this line of discussion since Swagato's question, is this question in response:

 

Say Swagato (or any of the other folks recently out of undergrad) didn't get in this season, then didn't get in the next season, either.  Then let's say "Swagato"  (used just as an example/name now, not as an actual reference to the person) decides  he/she needs to get a job to pay the bills because 9-12 months is a long time to wait between application/enrollment seasons and, hey, a person needs to eat and live under a roof, right? Or let's even say that Swagato decides that he/she is a little burned out by school and applications, and decides maybe a year break to focus on things other than applications might do him/her good.

 

Let's say this person then gets a reasonable job, say at a publishing firm or a nonprofit, doing somewhat interesting stuff -- editing; communications; social media related work.  It pays the bills and it's just that far from flipping burgers or making cold-call sales work to be justifiable to existence.  So now it's 2-3 years since school, and Swagato has a steady job, no longer has to live off ramen noodles, and starts to get a little comfortable.  Swagato still watches films [if this is his/her field], tries to keep up with some of the current discussions and hot topics in his/her field, and satisfies him/herself that they are keeping intellectually satisfied. Another year or 2 passes of steady job, weekend entertainment, and literature/film studies is now a hobby enjoyed in free time and in conversations with friends, and he/she has at the back of his/her head that he/she'll probably return to academia because that's who he/she is deep down, but for now he/she's making money, building a life, and gaining some interesting experience and knowledge -- including about some literature/film that he/she wouldn't probably have delved into if he/she had been within the confines of the degree program topic area he/she had applied for 3-4 years ago.

 

Then say it's somewhere between 5-7 years out of school, and Swagato is starting to feel that the 9-5 thing is just really not for her/him.  And there are these new film/literature interests he/she's developed in the last year.  Should Swagato consider going back to get his/her PhD?  Wait, he/she is now 5-7 years older than other folks who may be applying -- won't that be a hardship for getting accepted?  And let's say Swagato *does* get accepted, won't the 5-7 (heck, let's say 10) year difference that there might be between him/her and other folks applying for the tenure-track job once through the PhD program be a challenge to landing the job?  

 

Should Swagato give up on his/her preferred career/life choice now, [at age 28-33, say] because of the 5-10 year age difference that might pose a hiring challenge at top schools, and not even try?  Keep grinding out at the 9-5 job because, hey, his/her life is basically over now anyway, or at least set in stone now, right? No way academia has a spot for him/her, and he/she should probably just keep going in a direction that won't ever satisfy him/her, right?

 

Wow, that's a crazy question.  

[OctaviaButlerfan]

Ha! This is SO me, overall.

 

The other thing that I was thinking about this line of discussion since Swagato's question, is this question in response:

 

Say Swagato (or any of the other folks recently out of undergrad) didn't get in this season, then didn't get in the next season, either.  Then let's say "Swagato"  (used just as an example/name now, not as an actual reference to the person) decides  he/she needs to get a job to pay the bills because 9-12 months is a long time to wait between application/enrollment seasons and, hey, a person needs to eat and live under a roof, right? Or let's even say that Swagato decides that he/she is a little burned out by school and applications, and decides maybe a year break to focus on things other than applications might do him/her good.

 

Let's say this person then gets a reasonable job, say at a publishing firm or a nonprofit, doing somewhat interesting stuff -- editing; communications; social media related work.  It pays the bills and it's just that far from flipping burgers or making cold-call sales work to be justifiable to existence.  So now it's 2-3 years since school, and Swagato has a steady job, no longer has to live off ramen noodles, and starts to get a little comfortable.  Swagato still watches films [if this is his/her field], tries to keep up with some of the current discussions and hot topics in his/her field, and satisfies him/herself that they are keeping intellectually satisfied. Another year or 2 passes of steady job, weekend entertainment, and literature/film studies is now a hobby enjoyed in free time and in conversations with friends, and he/she has at the back of his/her head that he/she'll probably return to academia because that's who he/she is deep down, but for now he/she's making money, building a life, and gaining some interesting experience and knowledge -- including about some literature/film that he/she wouldn't probably have delved into if he/she had been within the confines of the degree program topic area he/she had applied for 3-4 years ago.

 

Then say it's somewhere between 5-7 years out of school, and Swagato is starting to feel that the 9-5 thing is just really not for her/him.  And there are these new film/literature interests he/she's developed in the last year.  Should Swagato consider going back to get his/her PhD?  Wait, he/she is now 5-7 years older than other folks who may be applying -- won't that be a hardship for getting accepted?  And let's say Swagato *does* get accepted, won't the 5-7 (heck, let's say 10) year difference that there might be between him/her and other folks applying for the tenure-track job once through the PhD program be a challenge to landing the job?  

 

Should Swagato give up on his/her preferred career/life choice now, [at age 28-33, say] because of the 5-10 year age difference that might pose a hiring challenge at top schools, and not even try?  Keep grinding out at the 9-5 job because, hey, his/her life is basically over now anyway, or at least set in stone now, right? No way academia has a spot for him/her, and he/she should probably just keep going in a direction that won't ever satisfy him/her, right?

 

Wow, that's a crazy question.  

[BunnyWantsaPhD]

I'm still really wondering over here if age is really a factor. Yes, there is quite a difference between 50 and 25, but even then, I'm not convinced it matters. 

 

I think age matters more in professions like law, business, and medicine where you can be seen as a "young hot shot." I just don't see it as similar in the humanities/academia. I've actually gotten tons of advice from professors to take time off, still do something in a related field, but overall be able to demonstrate maturity, experience, and dedication.

 

I'm not trying to make anyone upset because at I did apply straight out of undergrad as well, but, personally, I see all these "older" candidates with "real life" experiences as really unique and much more intriguing than someone who just got done with school. It just seems like graduate programs would see them that way as well. 

 

In the end, though, I don't think age matters either way---if you have a solid record and good fit, a graduate program is going to want you. 

[davidm]

can we stop infantilizing traditional students by making it sound like an early twenty-something (who may have worked through school) doesnt understand life or cant be just as sure of themselves as you in their chosen life goals?

[smellybug]

can we stop infantilizing traditional students by making it sound like an early twenty-something (who may have worked through school) doesnt understand life or cant be just as sure of themselves as you in their chosen life goals?

I don't think that's anyone's intention. It's not about you. Overall, we're comparing ourselves now to our younger selves, who most certainly did not know as much about life. And obviously we weren't as sure about our life goals because we're at this point now. If you've got it at worked out, and plenty of twenty-somethings do, good for you. The assumption that we're trying to counter is that there's no upside to taking time away from school. That's not to say that those who go a traditional route are less capable. Again, it's not about you.

[champagne]

I don't think that's anyone's intention. It's not about you.

 

Appropriate:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFt7EzpsZQo

[Katzenmusik]

Yeah, I'll probably be in my mid-to-late 30's when I finish my PhD.  Hadn't occurred to me to feel like a horse on my way to the knackers.

 

People aren't admitted to PhD programs for their "spirit" but for their potential to contribute to the field.

 

And as far as I can tell, the job market is a gamble for everyone, whether or not you spent your 20's outside of academic institutions.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Katzenmusik