Well now, that's not very nice. Merely being in your 30s (or more) isn't a guarantee that you're a better applicant or that you're more worldly. If you've gained insight into your goals, had experiences to broaden your world view, sure. And just living will give you some of that. But to really have a ton more to offer, you have to be playing an active role in the maturing process, thinking, evaluating, learning, not just taking life as it comes and not thinking about it. So it's not guaranteed that older = more mature, etc.
And it's also not fair to say that people in their 20s (even early 20s, or even teens, in the case of our dear pupsforseeing 😉) are guaranteed to lack that maturity. There are some people who go through more by the time they're 18 than most of us will have gone through in many more years. So let's not make too generalizations that are too broad here. Everyone offers something unique.
I didn't say being older or younger had anything to do with anything, I DID imply that age MIGHT allow one to have MORE experience and therefore be an asset; to fail to recognize this simple fact is why a "younger" person is sometimes not considered as mature and worldly as an older person.
IOW, it is generally accepted that teenagers think they own the world and know everything and this changes with time as they gain experience and wisdom. How much it changes depends on various factors. Some teenagers never get it and are then obnoxious adults. Kinda. But that's another story.
The main problem I see with "hard science" thinking (remember, I come from a diverse background and come to the table later) is the desire for hard and fast rules. For example, look at this thread and the desire to reduce applications to some numbers game where a mathematical outcome is certain. Forget it! Applicants are unique and while some facts are fun to play with (GPA, GRE, etc. etc.) the bottom line is that a successful applicant met the criteria of the adcom at the time they were admitted. No more and no less. While the range of values are fun to examine and are a nice starting point, they are not the be-all end-all and ANYONE who wishes to apply and try to gain admission, should.
Medicine is art, not just science. While there are ranges, there are never certainties (with some exceptions, of course). I think you will discover this the more time you spend in practice and in the trenches. One of my favorite quotes is "I keep asking my [insert animal] to read the books, but all it ever does is eat the pages!"
There are exceptions and there are never concrete answers. To anything. Ever. Even a "scientific law" is not 100%.
To fail to see why an adcom MIGHT consider a 30's age applicant differently than a 20's applicant is the crux of my original post. If one fails to see why they MIGHT look at them differently, then you have just answered the question itself; The 30's person is *more likely* to understand that decisions are more than just numbers and mathematical equations for admissions, whereas the early 20's fresh from undergrad have emerged from a world where numbers and grades are the predominant facts for decision making.
One hopes that with age there comes wisdom. And as I stated before, there are NO guarantees and wisdom can be gained in life at any point and with any set of experiences.
I appreciate your comments and the time spent typing them. I fail to see, however, how my original comment is any different than expressed herein. And the same answer applies: you have answered the question.
🙂
P.S. Did I mention I was a philosophy major before I headed off to law school? I live(d) in a world of subjectiveness and deductive/inductive/deductive logic for most of my life. I am used to uncertainty.
An I, too, dislike lawyers, too. I know .... damn argumentative, slick buggers!!
