Does age matter?

[Livethedream]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Just wondering if one's chances of getting into grad school are significantly reduced the older one is? It pains me even to think that I am old, but, in relation to other students on these boards, I seem to be somewhat of a pensioner (27)😳

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

If anything, it will be seen as a benefit. I am/was in your position, and I can't begin to tell you how much my previous life experiences enhanced my grad school experience. Many younger applicants don't know what it is to hold down a career, navigate office politics, find the life/work balance, etc. I have a firm understanding of what is needed when I finally get out/licensed. I've already built up a network of existing professionals, cultivated job opportunities, and gotten my name out to people who can help me/people I can help. Our careers don't start when we graduate, but when we start our first class....many forget that, and are forced to play catch up.

-t

 

[psychanon]

Agreed. When my lab looks at applicants, we definitely favor the more mature applicants over the 22 year-olds. Post-college experience is extremely important in preparing you for the stressors of grad school.
<----a fellow youthful 27 year-old

 

[irish80122]

Agreed. When my lab looks at applicants, we definitely favor the more mature applicants over the 22 year-olds. Post-college experience is extremely important in preparing you for the stressors of grad school.
<----a fellow youthful 27 year-old

🙁 excuse me, I am 22. Well, maybe that explains a lot, lol.

 

[chaos]

I'll be 22 when I apply too, and so far I've heard that will mostly be a disadvantage...I may have to take a year off to do some research, but patience is not one of my virtues so I'm going to at least try to apply. From someone on the other side of the fence I really don't see myself competing with a 27 year old with real work experience. If all goes well I think my senior thesis is going to kick ass, but I don't have that much else to offer. Real world experience probably counts for a lot.

 

[timecoloured]

.

 

[positivepsych]

There's no problem with being older as an applicant, if anything it will help you, not hurt you. On the flip side, I think it is increasingly becoming harder for people applying straight out of undergrad.

However, I'm against the recent reverse age-discrimination in Clinical Psychology Ph.D. programs. There has been an increasing trend at selective programs to almost exclusively take people with a few years of research experience. While this ensures good research skills and some clinical experience under your belt, I feel like programs are losing quality applicants who are coming straight out of college.

Certain selective MBA programs (in which 2-3 years of experience is almost mandatory) have begun taking a few people straight out of undergrad in order to recruit superstars they might lose to other schools a few years down the line (they are given the option to defer their acceptance to gain more experience as well). They actively recruit them, will even will waive their $200 something application fee, and give them feedback on their essays if they don't get in.

I have plenty of friends who got into med school at age 21 because they know what they wanted to do and wanted to get on with their lives in order to start families. The Ph.D. + internship + post-doc process is so long as is, that lots of fresh college-grads might not be willing to put it off for another 2 years.

While it is certainly not impossible to get into a Clinical Psychology program as a recent college grad, what I have heard on the interview trail is that these just-graduated applicants are mostly the minorities at interviews, and that they have to prove to the professors that they are mature enough to handle the work (as if their age is something to be 'overcome'). It's great if you want to take time off, but it shouldn't be held against you if you don't want to take a gap in your education.

That's a bit silly in my opinion. If med students can get in at age 21 and treat patients by their third year at age 23 , there's no reason why young age should be held against an aspiring clinical psychologist. Internationally, medical students start at age 18 in many countries. The road is long enough as is, and clinical psychology as a field has enough problems as is, that's its just going to further deter the best and brightest from entering the field. Their logic is just going to be "well, 2 years post-bacc experience + 6 year Ph.D. = 8 years total. I could just finish med school and psychiatry residency in the same amount of time..."

What we need are solid public/private universities (not free-standing professional schools) to offer Psy.D.s that are clinically-focused and where you're guaranteed to graduate in 4 years, just like D.D.S. and Pharm.D. doctoral degrees. There's no reason you can't teach someone how to be a doctoral level psychologist in 4 years (if research is optional), if you can teach someone to be a licensed and practicing dentist or pharmacist in the same amount of time. This will be a big benefit to the field by attracting better candidates, ensuring quality control, and limiting the number of graduates entering the market.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

There's no reason you can't teach someone how to be a doctoral level psychologist in 4 years (if research is optional),

I agree with everything you have said, but I just wanted to point out that I think it is dangerous to not req. at least some work with research. I believe we as psychologists need to understand where our information is coming from. Not everyone needs to be a producer of research, but we need to be consumers of research....which implies a thorough understanding of what the research means, how to differentiate solid research from home cooking, etc.

Just my own 2 cents.....now back to your regularly scheduled thread topic. 😉

-t

 

[psychanon]

There's no problem with being older as an applicant, if anything it will help you, not hurt you. On the flip side, I think it is increasingly becoming harder for people applying straight out of undergrad.

However, I'm against the recent reverse age-discrimination in Clinical Psychology Ph.D. programs. There has been an increasing trend at selective programs to almost exclusively take people with a few years of research experience. While this ensures good research skills and some clinical experience under your belt, I feel like programs are losing quality applicants who are coming straight out of college.

Certain selective MBA programs (in which 2-3 years of experience is almost mandatory) have begun taking a few people straight out of undergrad in order to recruit superstars they might lose to other schools a few years down the line (they are given the option to defer their acceptance to gain more experience as well). They actively recruit them, will even will waive their $200 something application fee, and give them feedback on their essays if they don't get in.

I have plenty of friends who got into med school at age 21 because they know what they wanted to do and wanted to get on with their lives in order to start families. The Ph.D. + internship + post-doc process is so long as is, that lots of fresh college-grads might not be willing to put it off for another 2 years.

While it is certainly not impossible to get into a Clinical Psychology program as a recent college grad, what I have heard on the interview trail is that these just-graduated applicants are mostly the minorities at interviews, and that they have to prove to the professors that they are mature enough to handle the work (as if their age is something to be 'overcome'). It's great if you want to take time off, but it shouldn't be held against you if you don't want to take a gap in your education.

That's a bit silly in my opinion. If med students can get in at age 21 and treat patients by their third year at age 23 , there's no reason why young age should be held against an aspiring clinical psychologist. Internationally, medical students start at age 18 in many countries. The road is long enough as is, and clinical psychology as a field has enough problems as is, that's its just going to further deter the best and brightest from entering the field. Their logic is just going to be "well, 2 years post-bacc experience + 6 year Ph.D. = 8 years total. I could just finish med school and psychiatry residency in the same amount of time..."

What we need are solid public/private universities (not free-standing professional schools) to offer Psy.D.s that are clinically-focused and where you're guaranteed to graduate in 4 years, just like D.D.S. and Pharm.D. doctoral degrees. There's no reason you can't teach someone how to be a doctoral level psychologist in 4 years (if research is optional), if you can teach someone to be a licensed and practicing dentist or pharmacist in the same amount of time. This will be a big benefit to the field by attracting better candidates, ensuring quality control, and limiting the number of graduates entering the market.

In some ways, I see what you're saying. As programs get more and more competitive, the standards get set higher and higher, to the point where it becomes ridiculous. Why not only accept people with 5 post-B.A. years experience? How about 10? As long as there are people who are willing to do the time, you could keep pushing the requirements upwards to the point where they are arbitrary.

However, i don't think that giving the advantage to people with a few years of experience is arbitrary. Maybe requiring 10 years would be, but not giving a slight advantage to those who have taken 1 or 2. I truly believe that spending a year or two out of college before grad school better prepares you for its challenges. I've formed this opinion both from taking time off myself and from looking at my grad school classmates. I was SO much more knowledgeable about the field and my research area and more savvy about working with clinical populations after taking two years off. I did a lot as an undergrad-- an honors thesis, an internship at a psychiatric hospital, a crisis hotline, etc.-- but nothing compares to being fully immersed in a clinical/research world. As a result, I got into a much better program than I would have as an undergrad. That's why

Some of the people in my program took time off, some didn't. The ones that didn't are more likely to feel overwhelmed by research and clinical responsibilities, take longer to get rolling on their research ideas, and have been more likely to drop out because they realize that clinical psych is not for them. I don't know anyone who regrets taking time off, but I know people who regret not taking time off.

So given how many applicants there are, programs basically have their choice of what attributes to select for. Why wouldn't they take into consideration a proven predictor of success?

Of course, I don't mean to imply that 22 year olds are immature or that people coming straight from undergrad can't succeed in grad school. Of course that's not true. Many people do spectacularly well (especially since those people who get in straight from UG tend to be extremely talented). I'm saying that in aggregate those who take time off tend to do better. Of course, those who don't take time off will be done 2 years sooner, and can use that time to get a post-doc to catch up.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

One downside of taking time off.....you actually know what it is to have money, before giving all of that up again!

-t

 

[phd2006]

A number of students in my former program felt age was an advantage when interviewing for programs but a disadvantage when applying for internships. 😕

 

[psychanon]

One downside of taking time off.....you actually know what it is to have money, before giving all of that up again!

-t

That's the (one) nice thing about getting a low paid RA job-- you don't get that. I've had low paying jobs/ stipends my whole life, so now the $30k I'm bound to make as a post-doc seems like a goldmine. 😆

A number of students in my former program felt age was an advantage when interviewing for programs but a disadvantage when applying for internships.

That's odd. Maybe because by the time "older" students reach internships, they may be ready to start a family, which could get in the way of internship. Of course, to give a disadvantage for that is totally discriminatory and illegal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

[GiantSteps]

I have been waiting for the perfect time and place to state the following facts and this is it!

Francis Crick (of the Crick and Watson DNA model) did not start his Ph.D. until he was 35! I can't get an exact date of when he finished it but definitely no earlier than 37!

But that is nothing, Jacques Derrida (Philosopher and founder of Deconstructionism) did not defend his dissertation until he was 50!

So a late start on graduate school did not hold back Crick and Derrida from revolutionzing thinking as we know it!

 

[sicologia]

I have been waiting for the perfect time and place to state the following facts and this is it!

Francis Crick (of the Crick and Watson DNA model) did not start his Ph.D. until he was 35! I can't get an exact date of when he finished it but definitely no earlier than 37!

But that is nothing, Jacques Derrida (Philosopher and founder of Deconstructionism) did not defend his dissertation until he was 50!

So a late start on graduate school did not hold back Crick and Derrida from revolutionzing thinking as we know it!

Couldn't have said it any better! I think that it's great that younger students fresh out of undergrad go for their PhDs, yet there's a lot to be said about the pitfalls and joys of experiencing the process at an older age.

I'm currently 35 and hold a masters+45 in psychology. In less than 2 months, I begin my journey to get a PsyD. I know that there is nothing that could ever replace my life experiences that led me up to this decision. Ultimately, I think that becoming a psychologist requires experience with people, systems, and knowing oneself completely. If you can acquire this all by the time you're 22, good for you. You may be a step ahead! Just remember, you'll likely be in a program where folks have a lot more experience than you! Good luck all.

 

[Quynh2007]

Of course, I don't mean to imply that 22 year olds are immature or that people coming straight from undergrad can't succeed in grad school. Of course that's not true. Many people do spectacularly well (especially since those people who get in straight from UG tend to be extremely talented). I'm saying that in aggregate those who take time off tend to do better. Of course, those who don't take time off will be done 2 years sooner, and can use that time to get a post-doc to catch up.

I think it has to do with luck as well. My credentials and interests were unique enough for me to match 100% with a POI with unique interests. I got accepted straight out of undergrad because of it. no amount of extra experience in any job/research, etc would have augmented my application. of course, this is hindsight bias....

 

[psychwanabe]

I'm currently 35 and hold a masters+45 in psychology. In less than 2 months, I begin my journey to get a PsyD. I know that there is nothing that could ever replace my life experiences that led me up to this decision. Ultimately, I think that becoming a psychologist requires experience with people, systems, and knowing oneself completely. If you can acquire this all by the time you're 22, good for you. You may be a step ahead! Just remember, you'll likely be in a program where folks have a lot more experience than you! Good luck all.

I guess I win the "prize" on this one. I entered UG at 37, just graduated, and will be finishing internship (assuming I match first time out) at the ripe old age of 46!

I don't advertise my age, and the most frequent response when I tell is "shut-up!", so I guess I look younger than I am. I have never felt handicapped by it though and in many instances I feel that it has been a definite plus. I am rarely intimidated by professors, or interviews (although I still get nervous like anyone). I think this may have given me an aura of confidence throughout UG and the grad school process.

The only time I think my age is a negative is when I can't study all night! Having said that, I don't party all night much anymore, so maybe being a little smarter with managing my time makes up for it. 🙄

 

[coloradocutter]

One downside of taking time off.....you actually know what it is to have money, before giving all of that up again!

-t

no kidding - that is why i haven't left the law yet. the $$ in patent law is just obscene, all part of their evil way of getting you to stay in. it's hard to believe money can be a bad thing, but after a certain amount there is no correlation between $ and happiness.

 

[Quynh2007]

i just found out the age composition of my entering classmates. there's 6 of us, all women (1/3 minority), i'm 21, there's 2 that's 22, one 24, one 29 and one 30. so it seems age does NOT seem to matter.

 

[Gayat0891]

27 is the new 17 (J/K). I'm 26 (hate to disclose my age...who is looking) and just recently got accepted into a clinical psychology Ph.D. program at a good university. I would say that age and experience helped me a lot. One thing my POI kept saying was "you have some great experience and seem very mature". So with that said, I don't think age will hurt you. It is all about how you present yourself on paper...truthfully, that's the first step to getting your foot in the door...at least for an interview.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

no kidding - that is why i haven't left the law yet. the $$ in patent law is just obscene, all part of their evil way of getting you to stay in. it's hard to believe money can be a bad thing, but after a certain amount there is no correlation between $ and happiness.

I know where you are coming from. I'm trying to meld the good of my work, with the evil of the corp world...I'll let you know how that turns out.

-t

 

[Squarepants]

There's no problem with being older as an applicant, if anything it will help you, not hurt you. On the flip side, I think it is increasingly becoming harder for people applying straight out of undergrad.

However, I'm against the recent reverse age-discrimination in Clinical Psychology Ph.D. programs. There has been an increasing trend at selective programs to almost exclusively take people with a few years of research experience. While this ensures good research skills and some clinical experience under your belt, I feel like programs are losing quality applicants who are coming straight out of college.

I have plenty of friends who got into med school at age 21 because they know what they wanted to do and wanted to get on with their lives in order to start families. The Ph.D. + internship + post-doc process is so long as is, that lots of fresh college-grads might not be willing to put it off for another 2 years.

While it is certainly not impossible to get into a Clinical Psychology program as a recent college grad, what I have heard on the interview trail is that these just-graduated applicants are mostly the minorities at interviews, and that they have to prove to the professors that they are mature enough to handle the work (as if their age is something to be 'overcome'). It's great if you want to take time off, but it shouldn't be held against you if you don't want to take a gap in your education.

That's a bit silly in my opinion. If med students can get in at age 21 and treat patients by their third year at age 23 , there's no reason why young age should be held against an aspiring clinical psychologist. Internationally, medical students start at age 18 in many countries. The road is long enough as is, and clinical psychology as a field has enough problems as is, that's its just going to further deter the best and brightest from entering the field. Their logic is just going to be "well, 2 years post-bacc experience + 6 year Ph.D. = 8 years total. I could just finish med school and psychiatry residency in the same amount of time..."

I've noticed this from browsing admissions statistics from various schools. When a school states its average age of matriculants is, say, 27, I almost always remove it from my list. Why? Well, as a traditional applicant, I have little interest in applying to schools that seem to view the early-20s crowd with disdain compared to the "spent some years working and researching the real world"-crowd. I'm applying now at 21 because I want to do this now, at 21 - not later, at 26 or 28 or 30. If schools don't want younger (normal) applicants, I wish they'd explicitly state so, and save people like me the trouble of applying and writing essays and putting in the hours for schools biased toward older applicants.

 

[RayneeDeigh]

If schools don't want younger (normal) applicants, I wish they'd explicitly state so, and save people like me the trouble of applying and writing essays and putting in the hours for schools biased toward older applicants.

I actually haven't experienced this as being "normal" at all. I'm 21 and heading off to get my PhD as well, but I'm definitely not the "norm" as far as I can tell. Most people I know who are heading off to PhD programs are at least 3 or 4 years older than me.

I think my age may have hurt my applications, but then again it could have been that my application just wasn't as strong as other ones. It's definitely frustrating (as a younger student) that some schools seem to select older applicants, but I can't knock them for it. There are tons of really great older applicants who definitely seem to be "normal".

 

[Squarepants]

I actually haven't experienced this as being "normal" at all. I'm 21 and heading off to get my PhD as well, but I'm definitely not the "norm" as far as I can tell. Most people I know who are heading off to PhD programs are at least 3 or 4 years older than me.

By normal, I meant traditional. In my school, pretty much everyone applying for terminal degrees (PhDs, MDs, JDs) does so as soon as they hit senior year. This is "normal" in the sense of it being the traditional path students take (not just where I go, but from high school to college, or from college to grad school). Taking three or four or ten years off turns you into a non-traditional applicant. The folks you're talking about might be considered normal at the programs they're entering if those programs tend to select 24-25 year olds, but they would still be non-trads.