Age-related "advice" during interviews

[Pixelthecat]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I just got back from interviewing for the MD/PhD program at a school out in the midwest. Half the interviewers gave the unsolicited "advice" that they thought I was too old (I'm only 35.. sheesh) to consider starting the combined degree program, and that I should look at just doing an MD instead.

Anybody else seeing these kind of comments during the interview process?

Feh.

 

[spicedmanna]

I just got back from interviewing for the MD/PhD program at a school out in the midwest. Half the interviewers gave the unsolicited "advice" that they thought I was too old (I'm only 35.. sheesh) to consider starting the combined degree program, and that I should look at just doing an MD instead.

Anybody else seeing these kind of comments during the interview process?

Feh.

Thank the interviewer for his/her opinion, and then keep moving toward your goal.

Good luck! 👍

EDIT: Illegitimi non carborundum: Don't let them bring you down.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Your interviewer left the door wide open to tell him/her why he/she is wrong and why being older will actually make you a better candidate.

 

[ShyRem]

Yes. I had several MD schools tell me exactly that when I called for post-rejection information. I didn't reapply to those places again. I also found DO schools much more receptive to us "older" folks. (I was 38 when I applied.)

 

[efex101]

Well, to be honest..they may have a point. The MD/PhD route is a minimum of seven years *and* then residency. Many will do post-doc training *and* residency. The purpose of this program is to pump out physician-scientists and for them the "time return investment" is huge. I am not saying you should not pursue this...but just giving you on why they may have stated that. I was also interested in this route but after talking to various program directors the same issue came up. I decided to do MD only and there is always opportunities to do research w/o the PhD.

 

[MeowMix]

Look, they didn't tell you not to do an MD, so age alone is not the issue.

The big issue I see with starting an MD/PhD so late is that you are essentially preparing for a career as a research scientist, but you are way behind the pack. In research, everything depends on funding. In getting your grant proposals funded, everything depends on who you know, your/their reputation, and your possibilities for doing great future work. As a 46-yo just starting out in any research field, with a few publications and little or no history of successful performance with funded grants, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone to hire you for a tenure-track position. Yes, if you are a rare superstar you might make it work, but for the average person it will be a really hard time.

Perhaps you envision a career in industry, but still the youngsters will have a huge advantage, unless you again have some exceptional qualities that make you stand out.

Find out why these people are discouraging you. Perhaps it has nothing to do with you and a lot more to do with the ugly realities of research funding.

 

[ntmed]

Well, to be honest..they may have a point

I think efex101 is correct. (FYI, I was 38 when I applied to medical school, I alreadu had a PhD when I applied, and I'm currently in residency.)

Back to your original question, the most important thing is that you get into medical school. A PhD is secondary. You don't want to raise concerns during your interviews. If your interviewers are offering this "advice", they may feel that you have limited insight into challenges ahead of you. (It doesn't matter if this is true or not. I'm sure it's not true. But what matters, though, is that your interviewers don't think it's true.)

Another option to consider is the ABIM Research Pathway (http://www.abim.org/cert/respath_pp.shtm). In this program, you complete 2 years of Internal Medicine, then optionally do the clinical portion of a fellowship (1 to 2 years), and then do 3 years of protected research time where you can get an advanced degree. The advantage of this route is you get your MD out of the way early, you short-track out of Internal Medicine early, and you do your research with a lot of medical training behind you.

Yet another option is to add an extra year or two to any fellowship in order to complete an advanced degree.

 

[OncoCaP]

This is so strange. I'm older like you all and one advisor actually *suggested* that I do another PhD (I already have one in engineering) ... I personally did not think it was a good idea for me. If you think this is an isolated incident, another interviewer suggested that I do at at least a masters in clinical research if I'm interested in that (in addition to the MD I want and the PhD I already have).

My take is there are a lot of opinions out there, and if you want to go the MD/PhD route, then go for it. Yes, it takes time and you'll be old when you get out and all that, but if it's what you want to do, then do it. Maybe you won't be able to accomplish as much as if you were done in your 30s, but you can still do excellent research anyway. On top of that, with the MD/PhD, your tuition is typically paid and you don't need to work as hard/long for this PhD as the standalone kind. If my finances weren't in good shape, I would almost certainly go the MD/PhD route as an older non-trad. Yes, it does cost you time, but it pays money and you shouldn't have as much debt when you get out as you would with just the MD.

 

[1Path]

Look, they didn't tell you not to do an MD, so age alone is not the issue.

The big issue I see with starting an MD/PhD so late is that you are essentially preparing for a career as a research scientist, but you are way behind the pack. In research, everything depends on funding. In getting your grant proposals funded, everything depends on who you know, your/their reputation, and your possibilities for doing great future work. As a 46-yo just starting out in any research field, with a few publications and little or no history of successful performance with funded grants, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone to hire you for a tenure-track position at an age where you're thinking about starting a familyYes, if you are a rare superstar you might make it work, but for the average person it will be a really hard time.

Perhaps you envision a career in industry, but still the youngsters will have a huge advantage, unless you again have some exceptional qualities that make you stand out.

Find out why these people are discouraging you. Perhaps it has nothing to do with you and a lot more to do with the ugly realities of research funding.

I have a little time on my hands so I thought I'd tinker around a bit with posts.

"The big issue I see with starting an MD/PhD as a woman is that you are essentially preparing for a career as a research scientist, but you are way behind other women who choose careers with shorter periods of training and desire to be parents. In research, everything depends on funding. In getting your grant proposals funded, everything depends on who you know, your/their reputation, and your possibilities for doing great future work. As a woman of childbearing age just starting out in any research field, with a few publications and little or no history of successful performance with funded grants, you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone to hire you for a tenure-track position when you're at an age where most women are thinking about starting families. Yes, if you are a rare superstar you might make it work, but for the average person it will be a really hard time.

Perhaps you envision a career in industry, but still the men will have a huge advantage, unless you again have some exceptional qualities that make you stand out.

Find out why these people are discouraging you. Perhaps it has nothing to do with you and a lot more to do with the ugly realities of being a woman interested in an MD/PhD."



I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why age is an issue when other things which are proven to be more significant issues in who uses their training don't seem to be with the point being that NONE of these things should be issues.

 

[1Path]

Oh yeah, I was told to become an NP instead.🙄 And in this case, NP stands for Nuthin but a Pathologist😉

 

[ntmed]

On top of that, with the MD/PhD, your tuition is typically paid and you don't need to work as hard/long for this PhD as the standalone kind.

There may be some variation out there. But my medical school only provided funding during the PhD years. Your medical school tuition was not waived for MD/PhD students. Also, the MD/PhD's were taking a good 4 years or more to complete their PhD requirements.

 

[efex101]

One poster mentioned that he/she was encouraged to pursue research...despite being older. There is a difference in doing research during/after medical school than going for the MD/PhD. I have also been encouraged to do research *but* was discouraged from applying MD/PhD. The truth is that these programs are limited and they are looking at "time returned" hence the bias IMHO>

 

[bottles999]

I just got back from interviewing for the MD/PhD program at a school out in the midwest. Half the interviewers gave the unsolicited "advice" that they thought I was too old (I'm only 35.. sheesh) to consider starting the combined degree program, and that I should look at just doing an MD instead.

Anybody else seeing these kind of comments during the interview process?

Feh.

There's some interesting qips you can counter to that. Such as - Then "better to start sooner than delay starting any further...." One poster mentined that it provides a great lead-in to show how you differ from someone who is quite younger w/o the same maturity level (IMHO), serious consideration to career path you have had to give this selection, and most importantly the life experiences/career experiences you bring to the table.

Yes, I am even older than you, 39 now, and was accepted to an MD-PhD program this cycle. I wish I could say age wasnt a factor, but it certainly was in some of the cases to the schools I applied too. However, most importanly for you to know: NOT ALL! Just to let you know, it is do able.

I dont fully agree with all the peoples post's that imply older MD-PhD applicant's wont be productive till well after all their training, including residency. To me that misses the point. There'll be alot of times you'll be working in labs between the time you start the program through alll the training where productive research will occur.

Good Luck!

 

[1Path]

From my experience a LOT of the bias come into play when you 1) Apply to MSTP MD/PhD programs where the average age is around 23, 2) Apply after having a career VERY different from academic research.

To be honest I haven't received much bias and I think it's because ALL I've done for most of my life is research but if I did, I probably wouldn't think long enough about it really give a ****. 😀 👍