I haven't looked at all stats, but suffice it to say, with all due respect liz, well, I sense a bit of a ageistic tone--perhaps it some reality that isn't well known or publicized. Certainly whenever it comes up, it should be addressed.
Age to retirement? IMHO retirement is the kiss of death, literally.
No one has any guarantees of anything, regardless of the statistics.
If you look at racial statistics without the UR provisions put in there, you could say it doesn't look as good as it does for them as it does for others academically. And you add to this the stats showing greater health risks and shorter lifespans noted for various groups--even w/o the low income, sociological issues that factor into their health statistics. Now a good percentage may not live as long as those of other races. Should that be a factor in admitting them? Well, it can't because of EEOC, but if we are talking taking people out of the long-term commitment to medicine, well, there it is.
No Ad Com should not draw those conclusions based on such demographics. No one should make judgments in such ways.
As I said a while back, if you are going to discriminate in ANY way on the basis of age, well then, you had better start asking applicants about their participation in high risk recreational activities--say sky diving or mountain climbing or flying. I have known more than a couple of young docs that died while participating in such high risk activities. Some spots for long-termers could have been saved for those that enjoy the low risk recreational activities.
Let's also ask about those that choose to drive to work as opposed to riding their bikes or horses, or walking (Yes those activities carry some risk, but not as great as those for driving and MVAs.) And God forbid an applicant have a motorcycle license! Gasp!
What about asking an applicant about his or her sexual health and lifestyle? Ut Oh. That gets problematic too.
Bottom line is that it behooves fair, reasonable, and ethicaly-minded people on adcoms to put aside the biases, do their due diligence, and look at the WHOLE application file and the applicant. Age/birth date shouldn't be any kind of screen or marker against giving an interview or seriously considering an applicant.
I'm lucky. I am one of those people that look very young--a burden, particularly when going out after work with friends. It doesn't change what is written on my application--my birth date. If this is a discriminating factor, it will be over by way of scanning over the demographics on the application. What is that DOB? This suggests a reaction that sounds as if one's DOB is something she or he should be ashamed. LOL
You are born when you are born, period. Life is incredibly short for us all, and for some, w/o prediction, shorter than for others.
Everyone emphasis quality over quantity. Even modern medicine speaks of promoting quality of life. OK, so then the quality of the individual applicant's file and real life insight into the applicant needs to be what adcoms see--unless they choose to swim in a sea of dissimulation. Quality is a different measure from quantity. It's just that quality can be harder to measure than quantity. So we often try to measure it, quality, by some form of quantity. And if you are measuring quality BY quantity, MCAT scores for example, OK, fine. But how in the world does age enter into that equation?
To judge against giving someone a seat b/c you think they are close to retirement--especially facing the current reality that no one can afford to retire--is shortsighted. Heck there are folks that get into med school, graduate, go into residency, and then they decide to walk away from it all. I have known a few of them as well. For some it is more costly to do this than others. But people get into medicine, and they don't have any real clue of how hard it is--well beyond the getting in part of it. They literally want to jump out of their skin thinking that will have to "do" medicine for the rest of their working days, whatever they may be. And IMHO, part of that is medicine's fault for allowing so much of it to be glorified.
If you have two great applicants, but one is younger than the other, it is playing god to dismiss the one applicant simply b/c he or she is over 40. Nah. You have to do better than that.
It reminds me of the days when women were discouraged from med school b/c of their potential for pregnancy and raising children. Egads! They will leave medicine, and we won't be able to fill in the gaps. Meanwhile, med schools continued to be hard to get into.
You can't do that today. In the same manner of thinking, no one should dismiss an applicant b/c he or she is over 40. Listen, it takes a good twenty years to raise kids if you try to do the job right. Yes you can work part time and raise them. And yes, if need be, a person can certainly be over 55 or 60 or whatever and work part time or greater hours.
I can share of a number of docs that worked > than .75/week into their 80s.
I submit, in general, the only docs you are going to see retiring as young as 50's or early to mid 60's are going to be (or are) those that can't afford the malpractice insurance and don't have enough group practice support or must sell to a group.
One good thing about facing the realities of bankrupt SS and retirement accounts that have taken serious losses is that people are seeing that they can't afford to be as complacent about their wellness. So, they are trying to eat better, exercise, and in general be healthier. They KNOW they are going to have to work longer than those a generation before them. What's more, as people get healthier, they realize they have a lot more to contribute and a lot of living to do.
Personally, I plan to keep on living until I die and that means contributing in the area I know I can add the most--rather than just putzing around on some golf course or planning my next cruise.
My. . .ours is quite the ageistic society of people.
I look at each person, each patient, each student as the unique individual she or he is. Shame on medicine or ad coms if they are taking the ageistic view of people including their MS applicants.
Also, I am just wondering if an applicant should mention if they are recovering from a cancer or some potentially recurrent infectious disease, or how about an autoimmune disease on a application or during an interview? Hmmm??? I mean heck, wouldn't that factor into a seat going to someone with a supposed shortened life span? Hmmm. . .again. . .
You can see how this reasoning gets to be ridiculous after a while.
I am a nurse, and I've done a lot of open heart recovery. I have seen 80 year olds fly during immediate post-op recovery, whilst 30 and 40 year old circled the drain. If there is one thing I've learned in my nursing career, it is this. Look at the whole person and the whole picture. Anything less is a gross disservice to both the individual and all those requiring care.
So please go back and tell the adcoms to look at the whole application, the whole package, the whole person. I get that initially they have to look at the MCAT and GPA b/c of the sheer number of applicants. That's fine. But as they are doing so, tell them to ignore the DOB, just as they would ignore the gender or race or other EEOC-factor--or perhaps some physical trait like curly or straight hair or whether or not they have bow legs or a pointy nose or say HIV or pregnancy. In short, don't discriminate on the basis of age, anymore than you would gender or genetics or race or culture and religion.
