Age Play a Role in Decisions?

[durkin65]

I'm 23 and I've been applying to PhD. programs - already have my MA. So far, I've been rejected from all of my schools; I'm upset but it's not life-shattering. I'm just curious if any of you think that age plays a role in how department's make decisions, specifically if they prefer individuals who've had a little more life experience than those who've moved straight from undergrad to graduate like I've done.

Edit: I know that school's won't know your exact age, but most likely infer from CV and other schooling.

Edited February 17, 2010 by durkin65

[katie katie katie]

I'm 23 and I've been applying to PhD. programs - already have my MA. So far, I've been rejected from all of my schools; I'm upset but it's not life-shattering. I'm just curious if any of you think that age plays a role in how department's make decisions, specifically if they prefer individuals who've had a little more life experience than those who've moved straight from undergrad to graduate like I've done.

Edit: I know that school's won't know your exact age, but most likely infer from CV and other schooling.

I think some school prefer non-masters students, and see masters and phd as two disjoint tracks. It may help to consider whether you are competitive for this schools, in terms of GRE scores, past publications and work, and so forth.

[JennyFieldsOriginal]

i second the previous poster.

i took a year between undergrad and grad school (no masters though) and i've been successful so far...of course i still have a lot of schools to hear from, so we'll see just how successful i end up being

i actually had a professor express a concern about the fact that i was NOT applying directly out of undergrad, and wanted to make sure i'd be doing some sort of academic thing so that it didn't look like i was taking time off out of indecision about school.

the cohort at my undergrad institution skewed fairly young as well.

however, i think if you took more time before a PhD can be a really good thing depending what you do. you might well have better luck when you're older, but it might not necessarily be because you're older, but because you did something in the interim that makes you a more appealing student/scholar.

i also want to say i'm really sorry to hear this cycle isn't going so well for you. i'll cross my fingers some good news will come down the pipeline and if you decide you want to go to school later the experience of this round of apps will no doubt make you a stronger candidate. best of luck to you.

[Victorianna]

I have read that when considering candidates for admission programs are interested in candidates who are self-motivated and are so determined that they will succeed whether they enter a PhD program or not. In this way I think that age could be seen as an advantage. If you have gained some type of career experience in your field and proven that you are driven to succeed this could be a strength.

I am also sorry to hear that this application cycle has not been kind to you. I hope that the future has better things in store.

[Nighthob]

I'm 23 and I've been applying to PhD. programs - already have my MA. So far, I've been rejected from all of my schools; I'm upset but it's not life-shattering. I'm just curious if any of you think that age plays a role in how department's make decisions, specifically if they prefer individuals who've had a little more life experience than those who've moved straight from undergrad to graduate like I've done.

Edit: I know that school's won't know your exact age, but most likely infer from CV and other schooling.

I think it really depends not only on the department, but on the individual professor. I expressed concern about my age (I'm 38) to one of my recommenders, and he said he personally preferred older students. He didn't think my age would be a problem at all. Then again, I know some professors want younger students -- and at only 23, you qualify in my book.

I'm sorry you're having a tough application round. This is my second round, and I know that after the first time, I thought about all the reasons I might've been passed over by adcoms. Personally, I don't think that age is that great of a factor. And even if it is, it's not something you can control, so there's no reason to worry about it. Again, this is just my opinion based on my own personal experience, but I reevaluated my writing sample and SoP first because that's where I felt I had the most control.

[bikefarm]

For a PhD in public health I know experience matters to some extent -- how long have you been working in the public health field and what type of work have you done, etc. So age matters in the sense that the older you are, the more experience you have.

[callmelilyb]

I think perhaps that it is experience and maturity that are far more important than strictly age per se. I know the three are often linked, but not necessarily. For example one of advisors said there would be programs and professors out there who are looking for people that have "done something besides just go to school..." Age of course, makes extra-academic (is that the right phrase?) experience more likely.

Of course this does depend on the program, professors, etc. I think there are probably plenty of schools who don't care if you've done anything outside of school, but I think there are no schools where it's bad to have BOTH done well in school AND have done well in other things.

Edited February 17, 2010 by callmelilyb

[Venetia]

Firstly, adcomms would know your exact age, wouldn't they? I swear I've written my DOB on every single application. I agree with previous posters that experience wouldn't go amiss, but lots of people apply to grad school right out of undergrad. My big issue is this whole Masters thing- I did a Masters after my undergrad because I wanted to hone my interests and see if grad school was for me, and I was under the impression that this would look good. More training, you know? And now I keep hearing about schools that think having a Masters is a set back...it really makes my blood boil. I like to think of my Masters as an asset, not a shortcoming. Hmph. Sorry, rant at adcomms over.

So, returning to the topic at hand: I don't think age plays a factor in decisions, seeing as so many students apply at your age (I'm 23, too) as well as at later stages in life. Good luck!

[strokeofmidnight]

In the handful of English programs where I know the ages/status of a full (or nearly full) cohort...overwhelmingly few students came straight out of a BA program. (I should note: by "straight," I meant graduated the year before). Going through the numbers in my head, it varies somewhere between 5 and 20 percent. Most students either came in with an MA (sometimes an MFA), or took at least a year off after college. In speaking with a ad-comm members (though they're clustered in only a few programs, so I can't claim that this is representative), most seem to express concern when applicants go straight after a BA. In their experience, these students are far more likely to not finish the program...it isn't a matter of talent, but rather (as others have noted) maturity.

I'm deeply curious where the "schools don't like MA applicants" argument comes from. I've seen it float around gradcafe quite a bit, up but it doesn't bear out in my experience. (I've been a part of the graduate life at 4 different programs, ranked from within the top 5 to just barely within the top 5). At these program, often up to 30-50% of the cohort came in with MA's (I'd love to compare that with the percentage of applicants who applied with MA's, but that info seems pretty obscure). Obviously, this seems to vary drastically from department to department, even among English programs. There are departments (or so I'm told--I've never personally encountered any) that favors BA-only applicants, and departments that actually seem to prefer applicants with a different MA, but both seem rather exceptional--even among top programs. As a systematic rule, I don't think that having an MA puts the applicant at a disadvantage. It may be true that MA applicants are held to a different standard, but frankly, after 1-2 years of graduate study, that bar seems reasonable (and entirely achievable). More accurately, perhaps, if the bar is higher, most MA-holders are also far better prepared to meet/exceed that bar.

And for what it's worth, most of the candidates that I know of who were rejected across the broad after their first round and went on for stepping-stone MA's fared incredibly well (multiple offers from top programs). Obviously, it wasn't the degree itself that helped them...but rather that the additional training enabled them to write astronomically stronger writer samples, create a much more focused and appealing project in their SoP's--and it paid off. While I am rather biased and think the world of my friends, I suspect that their successes are not anomalous.

It's also worth noting: certain subfields seem more prone to the MA. I don't actually know this, but my sense is that Medievalists--thanks to the intense language training required--complete a terminal MA more frequently than other fields. And of course, earning an MA first seems very common (even expected? not sure that I'd go that far) for international students.

All of this only applies to English, of course.

Edited February 17, 2010 by strokeofmidnight

[123]

Durkin65, I'm sorry to hear that the apps haven't been going well! I take it you haven't heard from Pitt either:( I'm particularly interested in this thread b/c I'm also in a similar situation. I'm 22 and will be finishing my MA this semester. I have been readmitted to the PhD program at my school, which is not bad by any standards, but I also got my BA from this school. I'm not worried that my age hurt me, but I am worried that rushing through school might be a bad thing, since it prevents me from digesting things in the same way as others who have taken longer. Also, I hear different things about whether or not getting all your degrees at the same school will hurt you when you are on the market. Everyone I talk to (grad students only so far) has said that taking a year off is actually a really, really good thing. Still, I'm not sure if rejecting my school's offer would be a poor decision on my part, since I really don't feel like I need a break. This school, btw, though not a top 10, has one of the top programs in my field, which is the main reason why I stayed for my MA. Also, Durkin65, I'm going to talk to one of my professors soon about taking time off, and I'll let you know what she says if you're interested, since we're sort of in similar situations.

[PaperChaser]

I'm 23 and I've been applying to PhD. programs - already have my MA. So far, I've been rejected from all of my schools; I'm upset but it's not life-shattering. I'm just curious if any of you think that age plays a role in how department's make decisions, specifically if they prefer individuals who've had a little more life experience than those who've moved straight from undergrad to graduate like I've done.

Edit: I know that school's won't know your exact age, but most likely infer from CV and other schooling.

First of all, congrats on getting through school so fast! I can only speak from my own pretty weird experience, but I think that a well-spent year or two off (Peace Corps, Teach for America, working in DC for a literacy non-profit, traveling with a purpose) CAN help to show admit committees that you've had some life experience and that you're STILL sure that this is what you want.

My little detour (but one of many) led me to law school, and I can say WITHOUT A DOUBT that the students fresh out of undergrad (i.e. 21-23 years old, graduate at 24 or 25) across the board and regardless of class rank had significantly more trouble getting jobs or even interviews. A little real world experience can be incredibly helpful and shows that you can function outside academia. Plus, it makes you more interesting, and that's always going to weigh in your favor.

You're obviously really smart, so give yourself a vacation! You're way ahead of the curve....go live a little, then re-apply. If it can work for someone with a 2.7 GPA, trust me, it can work for you!!

[Str2T]

Now I'm worried my MFA will be a hinderance because it is most definitely a "terminal" degree (at least at this point, since competitive universities are determined to create Creative Writing PhDs *rolls eyes*). I know twenty years ago you had to be steadfastly devoted to a single field and one to two subfields at most at the risk of seeming less than dedicated or flighty. Things are much different these days, when schools love professors' abilities to multitask (teach literature and film or composition-rhetoric and journalism). I'm hoping MAs and MFAs are positively viewed in the application process, a reflection of a student's ability to complete a graduate program, do independent research and/or publish. I know the schools I applied to say they admit at least 1/4 masters students to the PhD programs (not their own MAs, however). I wish all worried masters holders good luck! (And young'ns -- I just turned 24). *fingers crossed*

Edited February 24, 2010 by Str2T

[lifealive]

It my experience, youth isn't what gets punished in the admissions cycle. It's age. From what I've observed, older non-traditional candidates seem to have a tougher time. It's difficult to know why--if it's because time away from the university causes one to get "rusty," or if programs want to recruit younger faces, i.e. people who still have big long lives ahead of them in which to publish and get hired.

Programs seem to like it if you've taken some time "off," but God forbid, not too much time.

And while we're on this subject, I wish we could stop calling it time "off." This is just a big pet peeve of mine. Not everybody takes time off to dally around and enrich themselves for a few years before getting started on grad school, i.e. a "real" career. For some people, it's about needing to work, to have a career, to make money. It's not time off. It's your life.

[melusine]

And while we're on this subject, I wish we could stop calling it time "off." This is just a big pet peeve of mine. Not everybody takes time off to dally around and enrich themselves for a few years before getting started on grad school, i.e. a "real" career. For some people, it's about needing to work, to have a career, to make money. It's not time off. It's your life.

Quite.

Since the rejections started coming in, I've had tons of people tell me what a great opportunity it will be for me to take a "year off" to travel/gain "real world" experience, etc..

However, given my personal circumstances, next year's "time off school" will most likely consist in me taking a full time work load on one of the three part time positions I currently occupy. Horrifyingly mind-numbing work, that, but which will just about cover my rent+food expenses (currently partly subsidized by my undergrad scholarships).

I hate this view people have of undergrad students: almost always necessarily inexperienced, dependent on parental funding, and somehow free to "live the life" their elders can no longer live due to other obligations and responsibilities.

I thankfully have no children to provide for, but I am still a growing adult with very real needs (food+clothing) and can simply not afford to "pack up and travel" somewhere.

Besides, you'd think people would know I've done my share of "travelling", being a recent immigrant and all..

[durkin65]

Firstly, adcomms would know your exact age, wouldn't they? I swear I've written my DOB on every single application. I agree with previous posters that experience wouldn't go amiss, but lots of people apply to grad school right out of undergrad. My big issue is this whole Masters thing- I did a Masters after my undergrad because I wanted to hone my interests and see if grad school was for me, and I was under the impression that this would look good. More training, you know? And now I keep hearing about schools that think having a Masters is a set back...it really makes my blood boil. I like to think of my Masters as an asset, not a shortcoming. Hmph. Sorry, rant at adcomms over.

So, returning to the topic at hand: I don't think age plays a factor in decisions, seeing as so many students apply at your age (I'm 23, too) as well as at later stages in life. Good luck!

I forgot I made this post. Thanks for everyone's response. And you sir/madam are correct about the DOB on forms. I don't know what I was thinking at the moment of writing my post - anxious? tired?

I've also seen many people write how an MA actually hinders someone's acceptance chances. I find it pretty strange - I also find the fact that some institutions like to accept students straight from their BA and put them on a direct course towards a PhD. During my time working towards my MA, I constantly asked myself if this - academia/teaching/research - was what I really wanted to do. At some points, I found myself considering to finish with an MA, but I eventually concluded that academia is what I truly want to do with my life. With that in mind, how do these programs rationalize accepting students straight from undergrad when the prospect of them changing their mind's remains present. Personally, if I see an MA grad or student applying for a PhD. program, I know that that person wants to continue onwards. Entering only with a BA - while I know many still continue and graduate with their PhD.'s - seems risky on behalf of the institution. I don't know - it's a strange thing to me that I have difficulty grasping.