Phd Programs that are less biased towards older candidates: conflicting information

[upstreamer]

Average age admitted by Wharton Phd Program is 23. However, I heard the program is supposed to be friendly towards older candidates.

MIT sloan posted a claim that the program is not discrimating based on gender, age, country of origin etc. But I heard older candidates (30+) has no chance there.

I called Cornell, phd coordinator told me age is not a factor in admission consideration. But some people told me not to go to Cornell if you are older.

I kept getting conflicting information. So I have to ask current phd students, could you please post what you heard or saw which program is not age biased and which is.

Thanks very much.

[Indus]

Based on my limited knowledge and only for my area (management/ob/strategy):

Wharton does admit some older applicants (even 35+). May be not many of them.
MIT - not sure.
Cornell - I agree with your other source. Cornell hires very few applicants (mostly just 1 every year) and they do tend to be around 25-26.
Other good schools less biased against older applicants (assuming extensive work ex) - HBS; Duke; UC Berkeley; UC Irvine; Purdue; UT Austin; UW Foster; UW Madison.

All the best!

[myself]

This has less to do with individual schools and more with areas of research. More quantitative areas rightfully focus on younger applicants (finance, operations, quantitative marketing etc.). In other areas it is actually preferred to have applicants with significant work experience (e.g., if you study accounting you might have an edge with CPA and 10 years of experience, organizational behavior is another one etc.).

[rsaylors]

rightfully focus on younger applicants

False. There is no "rightful" reason to discriminate against people based on age, race, national origin, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.

[upstreamer]

It is a fact that older applicants have a harder time than younger ones to gain admission. I just wonder sometime: how much is because older candidates tend to have lower test score, nonstandard recommendation letter etc.

[rsaylors]

It is a fact that older applicants have a harder time than younger ones to gain admission. I just wonder sometime: how much is because older candidates tend to have lower test score, nonstandard recommendation letter etc.

No. It is because of blatant age discrimination. The point of a Ph.D. program is to gain prestige for the school through the people it creates. The fact is that the 40+ years of productivity you're likely to squeeze out of a 20 year old is exceptionally better than the 20- years you'll get out of a 45 year old.

But this is irrelevant to how programs should act, as age discrimination is immoral.

[upstreamer]

The only thing I can do is to avoid to apply programs that don't take older applicants.

Please be kind enough to post the programs that you know to take older candidates.

Thanks,

No. It is because of blatant age discrimination. The point of a Ph.D. program is to gain prestige for the school through the people it creates. The fact is that the 40+ years of productivity you're likely to squeeze out of a 20 year old is exceptionally better than the 20- years you'll get out of a 45 year old.

But this is irrelevant to how programs should act, as age discrimination is immoral.

[rthunder27]

Anecdotaly I can report that Stanford GSB has admitted several 30+ students, although like most schools the median age at the start of the program is about 25. It's hard to judge how much age discrimination goes on at any given school, given that the VAST majority of applicants are under 30.

[upstreamer]

rthunder27, are the 30+ students in Finance program?

[ShowBizKid]

I am betting I am the oldest incoming PhD student on this board by a good margin. I was admitted to all the programs (econ and marketing) that I applied to. I didn't apply to T10 (for geographic/family reasons) but some are T20-25.

I did a lot of worrying, asking around, and research about ageism - as it was the one thing I could not control.

I found that most programs don't admit many older candidates because they are simply less qualified. The ETS research shows that GRE-Q scores fall off quite quickly at age >23. By age 50 the average quant scores are nearly 200 points lower. (old scale). (Interestingly GRE-V scores rise slightly).

Most older students left school and went into the private sector. They weren't driven to be academics in the first place. Their academic skills are rusty. Professors sometimes don't remember them and so they often have trouble finding three strong LORs. Ad Comms rightly question the motivation to return to academia (especially in a bad economy).

[I was a non-traditional non-traditional student. I went back and got my BA (2008) summa cum laude and MA (2010) with a 3.86 GPA, then did a year of independent research in my field, took more math classes, and presented at two conferences. This gave me a strong application and really current good LORs. My GREs were okay (>90th percentile each, but not perfect.]

I think there is a good ROI argument against admitting older students - I likely will have a shorter career than a younger graduate. It's like health care rationing, or organ donations. So, I know age bias does exist. I think an older candidate has to work much harder to be admitted, and once in their experience is likely to be different than others in their cohort for social/life-style reasons.

There's also some adverse selection that can happen with older students. Successful older people tend to be less mobile (they own a house, have a spouse, maybe kids), they have higher income requirements and fellowships/stipends may not suffice. They have families that demand more of their time. So what older applicants apply? That's not to say you can't have older applicants (like me) that planned well, have the money, and are driven to a new direction - but that's not typically the case.