Has this become a younger vs older which one is better kind of argument?
Well I did speak to a lady once who pointed out to me there are things in research that you are unlikely to learn as an undergrad. For example, IRB, grant submission, recruitment. The employees in the lab tend to do all that and the undergrads usually focus on the actual 'research' part of it. Just look at job descriptions and stuff and you'll know what I mean. But yes, the lady said to me she had worked for 10 years before applying to graduate school and observed that there were PhDs who had never worked in their life and had no clue how to run a research project (not the RESEARCH part of it, but the administrative and annoying nitty gritty things that you won't have the opportunity to encounter in your education).
Straight out of undergrad you can get into graduate school, but the question is how high you want to shoot. I know I can get into SOME school with what I have right now (honors thesis, 3 years RA experience, 4 labs, couple manuscripts in prep), I just simply want to shoot higher. I mean why not? In 10 - 20 years looking back I wont be upset about wasting 2-3 years as an RA but i would be upset about going to a school that I'm "eh" with.
And no, age does not necessarily affect maturity or your certainty of what you want to do. Younger kids can be mature too and younger kids can be sure of what they want to do too. The difference is simply in life experience. Just like how I handle things now are different from how I handled things as a college Junior. Its not just about credentials but also other things that contribute to u as a person like social skills, self presentation. For example, at one interview one of the interviewees took her shoes off in front of the professor and I was like
... and of course I'm not saying only younger ppl do dumb things but comparatively young you vs older you, the older you will always be more mature and more experience and more certain of what you want to do.
At least that my reasoning. I don't think schools prefer mature applicants, I simply see it as schools prefer a better and improved version of the same stellar applicant. I mean why not get stellar AND mature at the same time if you can?
Well I did speak to a lady once who pointed out to me there are things in research that you are unlikely to learn as an undergrad. For example, IRB, grant submission, recruitment. The employees in the lab tend to do all that and the undergrads usually focus on the actual 'research' part of it. Just look at job descriptions and stuff and you'll know what I mean. But yes, the lady said to me she had worked for 10 years before applying to graduate school and observed that there were PhDs who had never worked in their life and had no clue how to run a research project (not the RESEARCH part of it, but the administrative and annoying nitty gritty things that you won't have the opportunity to encounter in your education).
Straight out of undergrad you can get into graduate school, but the question is how high you want to shoot. I know I can get into SOME school with what I have right now (honors thesis, 3 years RA experience, 4 labs, couple manuscripts in prep), I just simply want to shoot higher. I mean why not? In 10 - 20 years looking back I wont be upset about wasting 2-3 years as an RA but i would be upset about going to a school that I'm "eh" with.
And no, age does not necessarily affect maturity or your certainty of what you want to do. Younger kids can be mature too and younger kids can be sure of what they want to do too. The difference is simply in life experience. Just like how I handle things now are different from how I handled things as a college Junior. Its not just about credentials but also other things that contribute to u as a person like social skills, self presentation. For example, at one interview one of the interviewees took her shoes off in front of the professor and I was like
... and of course I'm not saying only younger ppl do dumb things but comparatively young you vs older you, the older you will always be more mature and more experience and more certain of what you want to do. At least that my reasoning. I don't think schools prefer mature applicants, I simply see it as schools prefer a better and improved version of the same stellar applicant. I mean why not get stellar AND mature at the same time if you can?
Last edited:
