If you get in next year, how old will you be when you start your PhD?

[brouhaha]

I'll be 20. Luckily I come off as a little bit older and won't tell anyone unless they ask. My professors don't seem to think it will be a problem though as they all enthusiastically encouraged me to go for a PhD.

[fsmn36]

I am surprised to learn that many of my fellow applicants are applying straight out of undergrads. That means some people are starting their PhDs at the age of 21/22. That seems so young to me!

I have a friend in my program who did undergrad in 3 years thanks to taking community college classes for high school, and then applied right out. She started this fall in her PhD program at 20!!

I'm doing my masters first, so, provided I get my degree on time, I'll be 25 when I start the PhD portion of my education.

[fsmn36]

I'll be 20. Luckily I come off as a little bit older and won't tell anyone unless they ask. My professors don't seem to think it will be a problem though as they all enthusiastically encouraged me to go for a PhD.

They'll find out. That seemed to be one of the first questions everyone asked each other. You'll get some gentle ribbing, but it shouldn't be too bad. Unless your department loves bars.lol (That was my friend's problem till she turned 21.)

[alexis]

I have a friend in my program who did undergrad in 3 years thanks to taking community college classes for high school, and then applied right out. She started this fall in her PhD program at 20!!

My current prof & PI did something like this, got undergrad at 21, PhD at 25, and now she's 30, worked in consulting, now in a tenure-track job, published a ton, won prestigious awards, speaking at conferences, etc. She is a mad genius, but it's like "uh...I'm 25 and only getting started!"

[wolfentinus]

I'd be 25. That's one of my "scary ages": an age at which, when it still seemed distant, I imagined I'd have my life together. I really hope I get in for so many reasons, but hitting my 25th birthday with a real direction is definitely one of them!

Your words reflect what I feel as well. I'll be 25 too.

[missesENG]

If all goes well, I'll be 25 on the verge of 26.

I think that's a lovely age

[psycholinguist]

24.

The right age to start a Ph.D. is when you're sure you want it.

[rainy_day]

I'll be 25 and I think this is the perfect time for me.

[pangur-ban]

29, but I was 26 when I started my first MA. I sometimes wish I could've figured out what I wanted re: grad school earlier, but I wouldn't give up all the stuff I did in my "time off".

[genotype]

I am surprised to learn that many of my fellow applicants are applying straight out of undergrads. That means some people are starting their PhDs at the age of 21/22. That seems so young to me!

Well, if I get in next year I'll be starting my PhD at the age of 26. To me it's the perfect timing. How about you guys?

I would be 32. I took some time to start a family before applying.

[psychdork]

24

I was planning on starting my PhD when I would have been 22. But I realized my senior year of undergrad that I wasn't as competitive for grad school as I would have liked to be, so I stretched my undergrad from 4 to 5 years, and then was denied admission last year.

[acup313]

25

It seems like a good age to start to me. Since my program can be finished in four years at a few schools I applied to, I could possibly still be in my 20s when I get my first job as a Professor.

[jlee306]

I'm going for a Specialist degree which is in-between a Master's and a Doctorate degree. I will have just turned 22 about a week before classes begin if I get in. I am coming straight out of undergrad.

[sometimesiexist]

I will be 22 and straight out of UG, I will also (fingers crossed) be working in ethical and moral theory in a philosophy department. I, honestly, see very little connection to this *deep human nature* that seems to be necessary, as the trend in ethical theory is to state that we're wrong to believe that humans have some special ingredient that makes them have a specific and special nature as opposed to the rest of the living things on this planet. Also, I don't see how being 22 means I don't have this magical life experience that I somehow need to be in the humanities. I've held full time jobs (during my first two years UG I worked around 36 hours a week, don't tell my advisor, she thinks I only was working 20 or so), and have been financially independent since 18, dealt with major issues when I was in high school, and have had long term relationships complete with home sharing. I'm not sure what counts as life experience here, but I feel like I've got a good bit of it.

[LifeIsGood]

In eight years, you will be xplus8 age anyway, he would reply.

Smart guy. So the real question is, do I want to be 45 with or without a PhD? That's an easy answer.

That's actually kind of close to how I decided I wanted kids. Totally weird, I know. I wasn't excited about kids, but I really didn't want to be 80 and not have grandkids. I may still end up without grandkids, but at least I've got a shot. So there ya go.

[spozik]

I'll be 26.

Also, to sometimesiexist: I don't think you need to defend yourself or your age to anyone. However, I don't think that "life experience" is really something you can quantify like a list of items on a resume. It's just something that happens naturally. I'm not old by any means, but I feel a lot wiser than I did even a year ago. Hopefully, you do as well! As long as you keep an open mind that others still have a lot to offer you and that you still have tons of room to grow as a person, you'll be golden.

[digits2006]

If accepted to a PhD or a masters program, I will be starting at the age of 22!

[quest09]

It is a travesty that we are so age conscious. No one should have to defend their desire to study despite being what others consider a less-than-ideal age, nor should anyone feel justified in their choice to study due to their age. Age is a state of mind. How old would you be if you didn't know how old you were?

My dad has a story about people who came to him late in life wishing they had become doctors (sooner). 8 years of study--by the time I finish I'll be xplus8 age! they would say.

In eight years, you will be xplus8 age anyway, he would reply.

Which reminds me of the saying, whether you think you can or think you can't, you're probably right.

Totally agree. If accepted, I will be 32 when I start my PhD. That said, I already have a MA and 10+ years of work experience in my field. And I look young enough that most people assume I am still in my early- to mid-twenties, so no worries!

[moralresearcher]

I'm applying straight out from a 3 year BA, so I'll be 20 if I start in the fall (my birthday's in November, so I've always been a bit younger than everyone else in my year anyway). I'm trying to downplay my age as much as possible in my applications, though, because I think it will only hurt my chances to draw attention to it. I'm afraid being younger just makes one seem less mature and focused than the older applicants.

I completely ignored my age in my SOP and am hoping that they don't notice my birthday or the fact that I did undergrad in 3 years when they look at my application... I will have just turned 21 the summer before I start if I get in this round. I figure, I found out what I wanted early adn took the shortest route to get there. I don't really see anything wrong with that, but then, I've always been one to try to skip ahead.

[ColorlessGreen]

I completely ignored my age in my SOP and am hoping that they don't notice my birthday or the fact that I did undergrad in 3 years when they look at my application... I will have just turned 21 the summer before I start if I get in this round. I figure, I found out what I wanted early adn took the shortest route to get there. I don't really see anything wrong with that, but then, I've always been one to try to skip ahead.

In some ways, maybe getting a BA in 3 years could be seen as a positive thing. Perhaps it will give admissions committees the impression they won't have to fund us for as long!

[peppermint.beatnik]

I will be 22 and straight out of UG, I will also (fingers crossed) be working in ethical and moral theory in a philosophy department. I, honestly, see very little connection to this *deep human nature* that seems to be necessary, as the trend in ethical theory is to state that we're wrong to believe that humans have some special ingredient that makes them have a specific and special nature as opposed to the rest of the living things on this planet. Also, I don't see how being 22 means I don't have this magical life experience that I somehow need to be in the humanities. I've held full time jobs (during my first two years UG I worked around 36 hours a week, don't tell my advisor, she thinks I only was working 20 or so), and have been financially independent since 18, dealt with major issues when I was in high school, and have had long term relationships complete with home sharing. I'm not sure what counts as life experience here, but I feel like I've got a good bit of it.

I find this attitude surprising, given your stated discipline. It's my background, and I feel the opposite. Of course, it's only something you realize in retrospect.

I defer to Paul Ricoeur--"To understand philosophy, you need to have lived." Maybe your 22 is more like a 30?

[peppermint.beatnik]

I'll be 26.

Also, to sometimesiexist: I don't think you need to defend yourself or your age to anyone. However, I don't think that "life experience" is really something you can quantify like a list of items on a resume. It's just something that happens naturally. I'm not old by any means, but I feel a lot wiser than I did even a year ago. Hopefully, you do as well! As long as you keep an open mind that others still have a lot to offer you and that you still have tons of room to grow as a person, you'll be golden.

+1--I wanted to say this too-you said it better.

[sometimesiexist]

I think everyone has room to grow as a person, none of us should be where we want to be or will be in 10 years. Otherwise, why continue on in those next ten years? I just don't understand why this should be ONE more thing that talks about how certain people aren't qualified for graduate school based on something relatively out of their control (like age). That would be like saying women are too childish for graduate school until they've started a family, or men not stable enough until their married so they have someone to care for them. It just seems stupidly offensive and unnecessarily judgmental to me. After being told by so so many people about how few women go to grad school in philosophy, and how many less are able to get full time jobs in the profession, I guess this just kind of tipped me over the "stop telling me what I can or can't and should or shouldn't do" edge. I apologize if my original post seemed a bit ridiculous, but my point probably could have been better made by simply talking about how we all have different life experiences and you can't put an age on it.

I'm honestly just tired of hearing about how despite my good qualifications, I'm unqualified in ways that I cannot control.

[red_crayons]

I'll be 25.

I'm worried because I want a daughter, and I want to conceive before my 31st birthday. Former professors and my awesome supervisor say that having a first child at the end of grad school was a GREAT experience for them...

However, I'm as ready as I'll ever be for the SCHOOL part of it right now. I was totally aimless when I finished undergrad and very jealous of acquaintances who knew what they wanted to do. My friends were mostly clueless alcoholics, which probably didn't help me in getting focused my senior year. Working and taking classes to follow an interest I discovered my senior year to its conclusion really did wonders for helping me make up my mind.

Age doesn't have to matter if you know what you want. Still, having time to explore new interests doesn't hurt. I've taken big chunks of classes in 3 very different areas (biology, French (language and lit), linguistics), and that really gives depth to how I think about things. For example, writing an essay in a French class about the psychoanalytic family drama was helped a LOT by having taken a course on evolutionary biology where the professor drove home the idea that Hardy-Weinberg is a framework that is instructive because of why it fails, not why it works. Thinking back to that professor and approaching the family as a framework, not a rule or an absolute, and finding ways to challenge it, rather than parroting back what the professor said, helped me write an essay that I was proud of (but that really angered the professor because it didn't say what she wanted!).

I guess the take home message from that ramble is that learning and doing more has made me more intellectually daring, and less afraid of what a big bad professor/admissions committee thinks of me.

Edited January 18, 2010 by red_crayons

[grendel]

I'll be 24 (almost 25). That'll be after a Master's (straight out of undergrad) and a year at a job in research. I've been bummed out (noticing new wrinkles, receding hairline, etc.) on each of my bearthdays since I turned 21!