Could age preclude you from receiving some interview offers?

[SmallTownPSY]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I tried looking for past threads for this question, but haven't seen anything recent so forgive me if this has been answered recently.

I submitted my applications for clinical Ph.D. programs a couple of weeks ago. On another site age came up and I noticed that most applying (at least on that site) are much older than me. I'm 22, will be 23 the summer before I (hopefully) start graduate school. One poster actually outright said that according to two DCTs they have worked with, my age would be a significant ding on my application. Is this truly the case? All things being equal (GPA, GRE, quality and quantity of research experience, strong SOP), would another applicant be offered an interview over me simply because they're older?

If the concern is maturity, I would think that maturity couldn't really be assessed unless you meet the person, but I want to know everyone's thoughts and experience regarding this.

 

[deleted343839]

No, I don't think so. In my doctoral program most applicants were in their early 20s and a couple of years out from undergrad, at most. We also had a number of people with more life experience who were pursuing second careers, etc., but they had no clear advantage over the younger applicants.

 

[niceman]

There was a heated debate about age so we'd better avoid that. There are many factors including applicants of your cohort, your POIs, their experience with younger and older PhD students etc., which there's no way you can find out. So even if it's about age, because of the law, they won't say it out loud. There are also PhD students as young as you. So the short answer is no, and you should be more concerned about how you can show your best at the interviews.

 

[blakjak12]

Well over half of the students in my PhD program come straight from college, and are the same age as you, so based on my limited experiences, I wouldn't say that age would be an issue.

 

[summerbabe]

In my PhD program, a large majority start directly or shortly after completing their undergrad. I believe our faculty may actually have more concerns about students who have been out of academia for an extended period and that transition process. However, I imagine that some program may prefer or even require people people to have completed a MA/MS degree or have postbac RA experience prior to doctoral training while others may not any preferences.

You can check to see if faculty at your programs have research websites with profiles of their graduate students to identity any common characteristics.

 

[MCParent]

If someone got a bunch of AP credits approved and hypersped through undergrad as so many folks try to do these days, and applied for grad school at like 20, I could see it being a factor, fair or not. But I also think most of the hyperspeed undergrads are less competitive generally, just having had less time to build up research experience. But 22/23 is a super normal age.

I think some people who "look young" run into issues too tho.

 

[SmallTownPSY]

If someone got a bunch of AP credits approved and hypersped through undergrad as so many folks try to do these days, and applied for grad school at like 20, I could see it being a factor, fair or not. But I also think most of the hyperspeed undergrads are less competitive generally, just having had less time to build up research experience. But 22/23 is a super normal age.

I think some people who "look young" run into issues too tho.

Thank you everyone for your responses. I was definitely under the impression that my age was normal but that comment I mentioned in my original post threw me off. Perhaps it was because it was within the context that I'm applying straight out of undergrad?

What problems have you seen with people who "look young?"


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[MCParent]

What problems have you seen with people who "look young?"
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

I don't think they have problems intrinsically, but some other people have problems with them (assuming immaturity or interpreting things as immaturity, patients thinking they are like 19 years old and could not possibly be helpful, etc.).

 

[temppsych123]

In my program, most students were 1-2 years out of undergrad when they started grad school, so roughly 22 or 23. I think sometimes applicants applying straight out of undergrad *can* be at a disadvantage because of the perception that they can't have had as much time to develop research training/skills, not so much because of their actual chronological age. That being said, if you started in research early on in undergrad and ended up getting the same level of research experience as people who took a few years after to work in research, good for you!

 

[therapist89]

Sorry for piggybacking on this thread, but I have a tangentially-related question: is it bad if you're applying straight out of undergrad without a published paper? Essentially, I had a revise and resubmit (that I mentioned on my statements and cv in my apps), but things aren't looking good in terms of chances for publication. I'm trying to reel in my catastrophic thinking (e.g., how am I going to get a job in academia if I don't have a publication before grad school), but my concern is similar to that of the OP because I'm worried that not having a publication will reflect especially poorly b/c I'm coming straight form undergrad.

 

[singasongofjoy]

In my experience the average age / years out of undergrad (0 or more) varies greatly from adviser to adviser and it's true there's no way for you to know how your POIs lean (if they are opinionated on the matter) so there is no point in wasting energy worrying about it. In response to @therapist89 I don't view it as ever "bad" to apply. What's the worst that will happen? You don't get in? So what? (well, assuming you budget well. The process can be a little expensive, especially traveling for interviews). The application process (other than being expensive) is great experience and can be really informative because it seems then many folks are happy to give you info about what would have made you a more competitive applicant and then you just use that info to do exactly that- target your energy to become a more competitive applicant and then apply again- to the same places even. That would show you took their advice seriously and are serious about your path.

 

[ClinicalABA]

Sorry for piggybacking on this thread, but I have a tangentially-related question: is it bad if you're applying straight out of undergrad without a published paper? Essentially, I had a revise and resubmit (that I mentioned on my statements and cv in my apps), but things aren't looking good in terms of chances for publication. I'm trying to reel in my catastrophic thinking (e.g., how am I going to get a job in academia if I don't have a publication before grad school), but my concern is similar to that of the OP because I'm worried that not having a publication will reflect especially poorly b/c I'm coming straight form undergrad.

I don't know statistics for graduate school applicants, but almost 30% of Ph.D. program students applying for internship (i.e., having already complete 4-5 years of graduate studies) report not having any publications. If ~1/3 of advanced students have no pubs, I'd imagine that number is much higher grad school applicants.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Sorry for piggybacking on this thread, but I have a tangentially-related question: is it bad if you're applying straight out of undergrad without a published paper? Essentially, I had a revise and resubmit (that I mentioned on my statements and cv in my apps), but things aren't looking good in terms of chances for publication. I'm trying to reel in my catastrophic thinking (e.g., how am I going to get a job in academia if I don't have a publication before grad school), but my concern is similar to that of the OP because I'm worried that not having a publication will reflect especially poorly b/c I'm coming straight form undergrad.

Short answer: no. Being as involved as you seem to be with the paper, whether or not it's published, will be a plus. Some of the more research-intensive clinical science programs may want to see a pub or two prior to grad school, but it shouldn't be a problem (in and of itself) at the vast majority of schools.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Sorry for piggybacking on this thread, but I have a tangentially-related question: is it bad if you're applying straight out of undergrad without a published paper? Essentially, I had a revise and resubmit (that I mentioned on my statements and cv in my apps), but things aren't looking good in terms of chances for publication. I'm trying to reel in my catastrophic thinking (e.g., how am I going to get a job in academia if I don't have a publication before grad school), but my concern is similar to that of the OP because I'm worried that not having a publication will reflect especially poorly b/c I'm coming straight form undergrad.

As others have said, not a bad thing at all and pretty in line with where you are in training. Many folks will not have a paper submitted at all coming directly from UG so that you have is a strength. It demonstrates an involvement and awareness about the research process, and that is a major strength as an applicant. If you want a job in academia, you'll need to work hard during grad school but there is time with a good mentor/good program/good initiative on your part. No one expects you to be ready for a job in academia after UG.

Besides, everyone has had something rejected from their first submission so keep moving it forward on it and don't get frustrated by that process either.

 

[Jegg]

You can do it!

 

[summerbabe]

I had zero pubs or posters/presentations when I applied as an MS student for PhD programs. But I had a great letter from my research mentor who spoke about the work I'd done on projects, including an independent thesis project, as well as my other qualities so you can definitely do it!

Sorry for piggybacking on this thread, but I have a tangentially-related question: is it bad if you're applying straight out of undergrad without a published paper? Essentially, I had a revise and resubmit (that I mentioned on my statements and cv in my apps), but things aren't looking good in terms of chances for publication. I'm trying to reel in my catastrophic thinking (e.g., how am I going to get a job in academia if I don't have a publication before grad school), but my concern is similar to that of the OP because I'm worried that not having a publication will reflect especially poorly b/c I'm coming straight form undergrad.

 

[PhDToBe]

I agree with the other posters: 22/23 is a normal age to begin a Ph.D. program and the vast majority of POIs won't care about it. However, I did actually have a POI at a program point out my young age (had just turned 21) in a negative manner at the interview; I should also note I look young for my age. This experience actually caused me to get my hair cut so I looked older, lol.

 

[futurecatlady]

I was about to turn 21 when I applied. I don't know if my age itself was as huge of a factor as me not having much time to get research experience, presentations, etc. as I finished undergrad in 3 years. I only got 1 interview. However, I'm sitting here preparing for internship interviews, so it's possible for us to get in!