Too old?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

LondonVibes

Full Member
2+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2020
Messages
222
Reaction score
110
Here’s a question I’m curious about. I thought of this when taking an EMT class with people ranging from 28-40. How old is too old to enter medical school realistically? I’ve heard that would be around late 30s or early 40s. What do y’all think?
 
Here’s a question I’m curious about. I thought of this when taking an EMT class with people ranging from 28-40. How old is too old to enter medical school realistically? I’ve heard that would be around late 30s or early 40s. What do y’all think?
50 would be my cut off line.

Some of my all time best students have been in their 30s and 40s.
 
50 would be my cut off line.

Some of my all time best students have been in their 30s and 40s.
I could see that. You’d be a resident by 54, and an attending from 57-60, so you could get a solid 13 or so years of practice, with 6-10 of those as an attending.
 
Fun fact: One of my former instructors is considering medical school (among other options) and could enter at like 48 at the earliest, so the cutoff is more real than a lot of us may think imo.
The problem is that they may make it through medical school, but not be able to match.
 
The problem is that they may make it through medical school, but not be able to match.
That’s a rare-ish problem for American grads but I can see why that’s the case. I presume that it would have to do with the issues of having residents who are about to turn 60, since they won’t be attendings for long no?
 
The problem is that they may make it through medical school, but not be able to match.
Would primary care (or anything with 3 years residency) be a stronger bet since they’d end residency sometime between 54-57 years instead?
 
Would primary care (or anything with 3 years residency) be a stronger bet since they’d end residency sometime between 54-57 years instead?
The concerns program directors might have is that they wouldn't have the stamina for residency
 
Wow, the age differences between matriculated and non-matriculated students in the highest percentiles really suggests some age discrimination by adcoms. And it looks worse for women than for men!
I REALLY don't think they are in the age discrimination business. Remember, once you are in your 30s, the opportunity cost of doing this is pretty high if you are successful in whatever you are doing. OTOH, if you are floundering in whatever it is that you are doing, while your opportunity cost is lower, you are also simply a less compelling candidate.

My bet, based on the numbers as well as common sense, is that the older candidates (mid 30s and above) are probably less accomplished as a group than you might expect. The fact that anyone at all breaks through in their 30s and 40s is evidence that adcoms are not actually discriminating, but probably are guarding against people who have a track record that is less than successful maybe looking to escape, or indulge a premature midlife crisis. Not discovering a calling until your mid 20s is one thing; mid 30s is a little late, and definitely calls into question whether or not it's a calling or just another thing to try.

Given the chronic physician shortage (malallocation, whatever!) , the fact that adcoms are open to admitting people with 10-20 fewer years to give the profession is what is surprising, not the fact that candidates in their mid 30s and above are relatively less competitive than their younger peers. I honestly don't think discrimination is the reason for the disconnect between applicants and matriculants above age 33.
 
Depending on the type of work one does, it is possible to continue working as a physician in one's 70s and even 80s (Tony Fauci is 80, his boss, Francis Collins in 71). I received medical care from a surgical specialist (who no longer operated) who was a very skilled diagnostician despite an advanced age.
 
Huh, interesting - Native American Men are typically 2-3 years older at the time of application than the mean of almost every other drink graphic. Not the point you were trying to make, but just something that stood out when I was parsing the data.
Not really. Plenty of years where Native American men have the same mean application age as numerous other races.

There were also 69 Native American men who applied to an US MD medical school in 2017-2018, so the sample size is tiny compared to pretty much every other race, even other URM's like Black men and Latino Men (602 and 1054 respectively).
 
Depending on the type of work one does, it is possible to continue working as a physician in one's 70s and even 80s (Tony Fauci is 80, his boss, Francis Collins in 71). I received medical care from a surgical specialist (who no longer operated) who was a very skilled diagnostician despite an advanced age.
Especially considering the retirement age will probably be like 85 by the time I retire.
 
Not really. Plenty of years where Native American men have the same mean application age as numerous other races.

There were also 69 Native American men who applied to an US MD medical school in 2017-2018, so the sample size is tiny compared to pretty much every other race, even other URM's like Black men and Latino Men (602 and 1054 respectively).
Just confirmed you are right, looks most prevalent among Native American and Hawaiian/Pacific island men, with a lesser extent seen in African American men.
I wonder why the correlation between URM males and high age?
 
Just confirmed you are right, looks most prevalent among Native American and Hawaiian/Pacific island men, with a lesser extent seen in African American men.
I wonder why the correlation between URM males and high age?

Law of large numbers. When sample sizes are small, you are more likely to see extremes.
 
Even with that, it is just odd to have moderate consistency year-on-year (ie. The only 3 groups with 27, and the 3 most common groups with 26).
With such small sample sizes, one possible explanation is the effect of post-bacc and Master's programs that cater specifically to URM's. Whereas many white and Asian applicants graduate at age 22 with a low GPA and give up on applying to medical school, URM's have the option of doing one of these programs but it adds on a few years. Even if only 5-10% of URM applicants follow this path, that would be enough to skew a mean.
 
Even with that, it is just odd to have moderate consistency year-on-year (ie. The only 3 groups with 27, and the 3 most common groups with 26).

Not really. As said above, small things can significantly skew the mean when you have a small sample size.
 
I REALLY don't think they are in the age discrimination business. Remember, once you are in your 30s, the opportunity cost of doing this is pretty high if you are successful in whatever you are doing. OTOH, if you are floundering in whatever it is that you are doing, while your opportunity cost is lower, you are also simply a less compelling candidate.

My bet, based on the numbers as well as common sense, is that the older candidates (mid 30s and above) are probably less accomplished as a group than you might expect. The fact that anyone at all breaks through in their 30s and 40s is evidence that adcoms are not actually discriminating, but probably are guarding against people who have a track record that is less than successful maybe looking to escape, or indulge a premature midlife crisis. Not discovering a calling until your mid 20s is one thing; mid 30s is a little late, and definitely calls into question whether or not it's a calling or just another thing to try.

Given the chronic physician shortage (malallocation, whatever!) , the fact that adcoms are open to admitting people with 10-20 fewer years to give the profession is what is surprising, not the fact that candidates in their mid 30s and above are relatively less competitive than their younger peers. I honestly don't think discrimination is the reason for the disconnect between applicants and matriculants above age 33.

I dunno man, your reply kind of reads like you have some unexamined biases of your own when it comes to older folks: your suspicion as to their motives, your casting doubt on their quality as a group relative to other applicants, your surprise that adcoms would ever admit people "with 10-20 fewer years to give the profession," etc. And my entire point is, I don't think that is uncommon!

But one could argue that if an applicant 35+ has the resources and the gumption to apply to medical school — which we all know isn't something one does casually (it's hard to envision it as a "midlife crisis") — then they are more likely to be making a considered choice rooted in self-knowledge accumulated from years of experience in the workforce. One could argue they might be more committed, less susceptible to burnout, have a lower learning curve when it comes to the non-medical aspects of the profession, and more likely to work to a ripe old age than your average younger applicant.

I'm not saying either of us really knows the answer — there are so few of these applicants to begin with — but I personally would be surprised if older applicants as a group were objectively less competitive (apart from their age).
 
Wow, the age differences between matriculated and non-matriculated students in the highest percentiles really suggests some age discrimination by adcoms. And it looks worse for women than for men!

Where are you getting that it's worse for women? A 1-2 year difference in the 75-99 percentiles isn't that much given the likely small sample size.

I REALLY don't think they are in the age discrimination business. Remember, once you are in your 30s, the opportunity cost of doing this is pretty high if you are successful in whatever you are doing. OTOH, if you are floundering in whatever it is that you are doing, while your opportunity cost is lower, you are also simply a less compelling candidate.

My bet, based on the numbers as well as common sense, is that the older candidates (mid 30s and above) are probably less accomplished as a group than you might expect. The fact that anyone at all breaks through in their 30s and 40s is evidence that adcoms are not actually discriminating, but probably are guarding against people who have a track record that is less than successful maybe looking to escape, or indulge a premature midlife crisis. Not discovering a calling until your mid 20s is one thing; mid 30s is a little late, and definitely calls into question whether or not it's a calling or just another thing to try.

Given the chronic physician shortage (malallocation, whatever!) , the fact that adcoms are open to admitting people with 10-20 fewer years to give the profession is what is surprising, not the fact that candidates in their mid 30s and above are relatively less competitive than their younger peers. I honestly don't think discrimination is the reason for the disconnect between applicants and matriculants above age 33.

Eh... Considering how competitive the application process is, and how any job or "life experience" (medically related or not) gives you brownie points in the process, not really. I do agree I don't think there's any unjustified "agism" going on.
 
Where are you getting that it's worse for women? A 1-2 year difference in the 75-99 percentiles isn't that much given the likely small sample size.



Eh... Considering how competitive the application process is, and how any job or "life experience" (medically related or not) gives you brownie points in the process, not really. I do agree I don't think there's any unjustified "agism" going on.
With all due respect, the delta between applicants and matriculants at the 99%-ile is HUGE: 39 to 33 for women and 39 to 35 for men. This is big, and flat out states that folks above the age of the 99%-ile of matriculants are disproportionately unsuccessful.

Again, I don't think it's because they are being discriminated against. I think it makes sense because the high opportunity cost for a successful mid career professional to start all over again, especially in something like medicine that costs a fortune and takes 4 years of schooling plus a minimum of an additional 3 years of low paid training, makes it likely that the typical person in their mid-30s actually seeking to do it is not setting the world on fire and just isn't as impressive as their younger counterparts.

This absolutely does not apply in rare exceptions like military medicine, where they highly value experience that takes time to acquire, which is why @Matthew9Thirtyfive is a purple unicorn and his school tends to skew older. OTOH, his career path does not involve a huge monetary investment from him (Uncle Sam is happy to foot the bill!), so his calculus does not involve giving up a high paid career, incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, or needing to calculate a ROI with 10-20 less earning years than typical. The simple fact remains, however, that military medicine is a calling on top of a calling, and the 35+s not finding success at the other schools also aren't what his school is looking for.

Yes, schools love life experience when comparing a 23 year old to a 21 year old. Not so much when comparing a 35 year old to a 25 year old. Apparently, according to the table, the break point after which additional years of life experience is not a benefit is sometime between 33 and 35! Not due to discrimination, but due to
 
With all due respect, the delta between applicants and matriculants at the 99%-ile is HUGE: 39 to 33 for women and 39 to 35 for men. This is big, and flat out states that folks above the age of the 99%-ile of matriculants are disproportionately unsuccessful.

Again, I don't think it's because they are being discriminated against. I think it makes sense because the high opportunity cost for a successful mid career professional to start all over again, especially in something like medicine that costs a fortune and takes 4 years of schooling plus a minimum of an additional 3 years of low paid training, makes it likely that the typical person in their mid-30s actually seeking to do it is not setting the world on fire and just isn't as impressive as their younger counterparts.

This absolutely does not apply in rare exceptions like military medicine, where they highly value experience that takes time to acquire, which is why @Matthew9Thirtyfive is a purple unicorn and his school tends to skew older. OTOH, his career path does not involve a huge monetary investment from him (Uncle Sam is happy to foot the bill!), so his calculus does not involve giving up a high paid career, incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, or needing to calculate a ROI with 10-20 less earning years than typical. The simple fact remains, however, that military medicine is a calling on top of a calling, and the 35+s not finding success at the other schools also aren't what his school is looking for.

Yes, schools love life experience when comparing a 23 year old to a 21 year old. Not so much when comparing a 35 year old to a 25 year old. Apparently, according to the table, the break point after which additional years of life experience is not a benefit is sometime between 33 and 35! Not due to discrimination, but due to

I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but even at civilian schools, I did very well in my application cycle. Most schools value life experience, and being older isn’t a negative unless you haven’t made good use of the time.
 
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but even at civilian schools, I did very well in my application cycle. Most schools value life experience, and being older isn’t a negative unless you haven’t made good use of the time.
Yes, of course. That's why I referred to you as my purple unicorn! 😎

Most people your age applying don't have your experience or service orientation. In fact, your success is proof of my point, removing USUHS from the equation. You are the 30-something with a true calling, and not a failed management consultant looking for a credential that ensures a steady gig.

It's really not about good or bad use of time. My point is that most people in their mid 30s looking at medicine are running away from something rather than towards medicine, again, due to the high opportunity cost for them. I believe that accounts for the divergence at the particular age break point, as opposed to age discrimination. The fact that you did not experience it just reinforces my point.
 
Yes, of course. That's why I referred to you as my purple unicorn! 😎

Most people your age applying don't have your experience or service orientation. In fact, your success is proof of my point, removing USUHS from the equation. You are the 30-something with a true calling, and not a failed management consultant looking for a credential that ensures a steady gig.

It's really not about good or bad use of time. My point is that most people in their mid 30s looking at medicine are running away from something rather than towards medicine, again, due to the high opportunity cost for them. I believe that accounts for the divergence at the particular age break point, as opposed to age discrimination. The fact that you did not experience it just reinforces my point.
Most people your age applying don’t have any idea what it’s like to be in your 30s. It takes a lot of courage to make big changes — whether you’re working an awful service-sector job to get by, are a bored middle manager, or are happy with your current position but desire something more or different. Emerson put it best: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” I hope you stay open to letting life surprise you.

In the future, you may want to try making your points with less judgmental language.
 
Most people your age applying don’t have any idea what it’s like to be in your 30s. It takes a lot of courage to make big changes — whether you’re working an awful service-sector job to get by, are a bored middle manager, or are happy with your current position but desire something more or different. Emerson put it best: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” I hope you stay open to letting life surprise you.

In the future, you may want to try making your points with less judgmental language.
You're right. I'm just assuming adcoms don't have any reason to discriminate based on age, and am then back filling to come up with a plausible reason for the disconnect at age 33-35. 35 year old rock stars not looking to be career changers seemed reasonable to me. 23 year olds are full of untapped potential. A 35 year old who is not walking away from much to apply to med school is not.

You're actually making my point. A 35 year old bored middle manager might be exhibiting great courage by trying to become a doctor. Why should the adcom care about this? This is a 35 year old who hasn't set the world on fire and is looking for a change. Not exactly a compelling reason to grant a precious commodity to him/her instead of a highly motivated kid a year out of school!

I'm totally not passing judgment on anyone, certainly not a hypothetical stranger I haven't met! 🙂 I'm just offering a plausible explanation for the observed phenomena that does not involve age discrimination by adcoms. Sorry if anything in my posts was less than clear about this.
 
Last edited:
N=1 here, but as a geriatric 35 y.o., I had no issues this cycle. I wonder if the issue is that there are so few applicants over 35?
No. The issue is just that the vast majority of 35 year olds are not nearly as attractive as candidates as you apparently are, and, most importantly, are disproportionately unsuccessful relative to their numbers. You are, however, evidence that age discrimination is not a thing here.
 
This is an abhorrently false statement and a blatant overreach of your assumptions of an entire population. You are displaying an absolute disregard for life circumstances which you don’t seem to understand. This makes sense as you haven’t had these sorts of life experiences, however it would behoove you to heed the advice of those who are living through them and have lived through them as opposed to continuing to insert your own implicit biases and assumptions into the mixture.

As someone who has been an advisor for nontrads going in to the premed pathway, let me list for you all of the most common reasons they may be underperforming when compared to their younger peers:

1) They are many years removed from undergrad. This leads to a number of issues:

a. Far removed from undergrad means much more effort is required to study for the MCAT, leading to lower MCAT scores at higher ages even with equal effort

b. Far removed from undergrad means post-bac classes, it means completely relearning new material you haven’t touched in a decade, lower GPAs with equal effort

c. Far removed from undergrad means less access to on campus resources, advising, tutoring, writers center

d. Far removed from undergrad means less access to LOR writers, no access to committee letters

2) Older applicants have careers, spouses, children, actual real world obligations beyond being premed. While some of these factors also apply to traditional applicants (particularly URM and low SEE) they are exacerbated and stacked for older applicants as they have all of these things going on at once. How can this affect them?

a. Full time employment. Do you know the time commitment required? It is extraordinarily difficult to even take one or two classes and do well at the same time as working full time.

b. The case for 2.a also applies for volunteering

c. The case for 2.a and 2.b also applies for research

d. The case for 2.a, 2.b and 2.c also applies for even being able to find classes that are at a time where you can go that doesn’t conflict with work. Most likely a community college, you know - the ones that some schools have a stigma against.

e. In addition to the time conflicts in 2.d, there are financial constraints the older lifestyle brings. Can’t afford to reduce hours or pay tuition because you have to pay for a 2 bed, or your child’s supplies, or two car payments, etc. etc.

f. If you didn’t start out towards a clinical career, you are not easily able to start getting clinical hours now.

3) An infinite number of other nuanced subjects that you really only understand once you have lived through them on how being a non-trad, like a real non-trad not “took a gap year” non-trad, is extraordinarily difficult. An example is just the simple social stigma- imagine being a 35 year old asking to shadow a physician. If you were a physician would you want someone that doesn’t obviously look like a college student shadowing you? If you were a patient would you want some creepy balding dude in a suit staring at you from the corner? (I say as a creepy balding dude who shadowed in the corner)

Reasons that people don’t choose to go towards medicine later in life:

1) They hate their current career and figured “YOLO I’ll be a doctor.”

You know the application process, @KnightDoc you got that down. But when people are giving information from a more credible source than our own opinion and biases, try listening.

With all due respect: 😎😎😎😎😎
I'm just offering an explanation for the stats that does not involve discrimination. I'm not an expert, and I'm not on an adcom, so feel free to disregard anything I'm saying about this. I have no interest in discriminating against anyone, and am not in a position to do so if I did.

SOMETHING is causing the vast majority of 33-35+ year olds to be unsuccessful, out of proportion to their numbers, regardless of their life circumstances. Do you really think boomer adcoms are discriminating against them???
 
You're right. I'm just assuming adcoms don't have any reason to discriminate based on age, and am then back filling to come up with a plausible reason for the disconnect at age 33-35. 35 year old rock stars not looking to be career changers seemed reasonable to me. 23 year olds are full of untapped potential. A 35 year old who is not walking away from much to apply to med school is not.

You're actually making my point. A 35 year old bored middle manager might be exhibiting great courage by trying to become a doctor. Why should the adcom care about this? This is a 35 year old who hasn't set the world on fire and is looking for a change. Not exactly a compelling reason to grant a precious commodity to him/her instead of a highly motivated kid a year out of school!

I'm totally not passing judgment on anyone, certainly not a hypothetical stranger I haven't met! 🙂 I'm just offering a plausible explanation for the observed phenomena that does not involve age discrimination by adcoms. Sorry if anything in my posts was less than clear about this.
It’s probably a mixed bag. Age discrimination and misogyny are very real in my field, but they’re not universal. You are still passing judgment and displaying naïveté.

Also, that SOMETHING doesn’t have to be one thing. You should know that.
 
I'm just offering an explanation for the stats that does not involve discrimination. I'm not an expert, and I'm not on an adcom, so feel free to disregard anything I'm saying about this. I have no interest in discriminating against anyone, and am not in a position to do so if I did.

SOMETHING is causing the vast majority of 33-35+ year olds to be unsuccessful, out of proportion to their numbers, regardless of their life circumstances. Do you really think boomer adcoms are discriminating against them???
Does discrimination exist? Obviously yes based on your very clear assumptions we can know that others likely have similar biases.

is it the primary reason for the discrepancy? No, that something is the extensive factors listed above.
 
No. The issue is just that the vast majority of 35 year olds are not nearly as attractive as candidates as you apparently are, and, most importantly, are disproportionately unsuccessful relative to their numbers. You are, however, evidence that age discrimination is not a thing here.
Try this next time:

“While I haven’t reached the age where I could be discriminated against for being too old and won’t deny that it’s a very real possibility, it may just be that they’re unattractive candidates. Most people who apply to medical school don’t get in, regardless of age. There are many traditional applicants who don’t get accepted. There are also many people who have taken gap years to get life experience who aren’t accepted. It’s a competitive process.”
 
Try this next time:

“While I haven’t reached the age where I could be discriminated against for being too old and won’t deny that it’s a very real possibility, it may just be that they’re unattractive candidates. Most people who apply to medical school don’t get in, regardless of age. There are many traditional applicants who don’t get accepted. There are also many people who have taken gap years to get life experience who aren’t accepted. It’s a competitive process.”
Excellent points! I honestly don't know why I got involved, since this has nothing to do with me. For some reason, I felt compelled to support the adcoms, who I just KNOW are not arbitrarily choosing to discriminate at an arbitrary age cutoff, and I thought I found a non-controversial explanation that maybe others had missed. My bad.

The fact remains, however, that the disconnect at the 99%-ile in the table goes far beyond lots of folks being being screened out due to it being a competitive process. I didn't realize I was striking a nerve, and certainly did not mean to, but the fact remains that doing the prep work and then applying is huge move, with huge costs, for a successful 35 year old, and the numbers as well as common sense dictate that they are not the majority of the 35 year olds either applying or being rejected.

Clearly, there are people in their mid to late 30s and beyond who are successful, and yet, the delta between applicants and matriculants at the 99%-ile is HUGE: 39 to 33 for women and 39 to 35 for men. This means men above age 35 and women above age 33 are unsuccessful way out of proportion to their numbers.

Fun fact -- I went looking for the latest version of the cited table, since it is 3 years old. It is so non-controversial that AAMC doesn't even have it on its website for 2020-21, so I guess these number are a sore spot beyond this thread! 😎
 
Excellent points! I honestly don't know why I got involved, since this has nothing to do with me. For some reason, I felt compelled to support the adcoms, who I just KNOW are not arbitrarily choosing to discriminate at an arbitrary age cutoff, and I thought I found a non-controversial explanation that maybe others had missed. My bad.

The fact remains, however, that the disconnect at the 99%-ile in the table goes far beyond lots of folks being being screened out due to it being a competitive process. I didn't realize I was striking a nerve, and certainly did not mean to, but the fact remains that doing the prep work and then applying is huge move, with huge costs, for a successful 35 year old, and the numbers as well as common sense dictate that they are not the majority of the 35 year olds either applying or being rejected.

Clearly, there are people in their mid to late 30s and beyond who are successful, and yet, the delta between applicants and matriculants at the 99%-ile is HUGE: 39 to 33 for women and 39 to 35 for men. This means men above age 35 and women above age 33 are unsuccessful way out of proportion to their numbers.

Fun fact -- I went looking for the latest version of the cited table, since it is 3 years old. It is so non-controversial that AAMC doesn't even have it on its website for 2020-21, so I guess these number are a sore spot beyond this thread! 😎
I only got involved because you generally seem to be a thoughtful person and I hoped you would see how off-putting the words you chose were. I don’t disagree with you entirely.

You are probably more adept with statistics than I am and I haven’t even bothered to look at them, but I do know adcomms are human and we all have biases and blind spots.
 
I only got involved because you generally seem to be a thoughtful person and I hoped you would see how off-putting the words you chose were. I don’t disagree with you entirely.

You are probably more adept with statistics than I am and I haven’t even bothered to look at them, but I do know adcomms are human and we all have biases and blind spots.
I really do appreciate it! Your points are well taken. I didn't realize that what seemed obvious to me might be offensive to others. I certainly didn't mean to insult anyone on SDN, most of whom, by definition, are not among the majority of clueless candidates who likely comprise many of the older folks not finding success.
 
AAMC doesn't publish the data on applicants & matriculants by age anymore, due to 'low usage'. It would be interesting to see data on 30+ applicants versus matriculants to get a better sense if there is and at what age a cut-off in terms of bias exists.
 
Top