<p>Hi. I am F/54, looking to apply for a PhD in Regional History. I have spent some time off from work and school raising family over the last two decades. During this time, I taught at high school level as that is more manageable, but my level of knowledge and interest are already at a much more advanced level than that. </p>
<p>Now after all these years I wish to go back to school for a PhD. I suppose American schools are known to welcome people of all ages, hence my interest in leading American schools. </p>
<p>There is however a notion that PhD programs prefer younger people so there is more time to contribute to the academic roster of the school. Will schools mind that I am in my mid 50s? By the time I finish my PhD (which I can fast track, actually, and get in 3 years if that is allowed) I will be close to 57 or 58. </p>
<p>My questions are - </p>
<p>a. What is the retirement age for American professors, and is there a hard cut off? What if an individual is young enough to continue on until 70? </p>
<p>b. Will being 54 hurt my chances of applying for a PhD? </p>
<p>c. Should I consider a Masters and then simply hope for a "lecturer" position instead of a full professor? </p>
<p>Thanks, but I think you miss my point. You professors may have been from the 1950s but they may have done their PhDs in the 1970s. This would have made them young 20-year old professors when they started their career. </p>
<p>This is very common. Most don't retire until 60 years of age or such. But they start in their 20s or early 30s. </p>
<p>But I bet your professors, while being born in 1950s, did <em>not</em> do their PhD a few years ago at the age of 50+. Did they? This is my scenario. I want to do a PhD when I am at the age of 50+. This will be my first PhD.</p>
<p>I strongly suggest that you ask this question on the Chronicle of Higher Education forum. You will surely get many more informed responses.</p>
<p>In my opinion, you should not have a terribly difficult time with admissions, but a specialization in regional history will set you up for a very difficult time finding employment. </p>
<p>And in answer to your other question, there is no mandatory retirement age for professors at most institutions, but most professors retire between the ages of 65 and 70.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thanks, but I think you miss my point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't, but I chose to only answer part of your question to allay at least one of your concerns. I was pointing out that people in their 70s are still around teaching and doing research.</p>
<p>It's very hard for any history Ph.D. to get a tenure-track position, and I think your chances of landing one would be even lower. Lecturer is the best you can do IMO.</p>
<p>A good friend of the family just earned his PhD (following a 28-year career in elementary administration) at 54 and immediately started a tenure track position at a decent university in History.</p>
<p>You only get one live to live, so even if you can teach for 10-12 years it would be worth it.</p>
<p>I am a middle age individual who recently earned a MA and is also looking at PhD options. Your concern is very real. One issue is funding. The majority of better PhD programs are fully funded (whether you need it or not!), and program administrators prefer to spend their money on applicants who will have decades of employment and publishing in which to reflect well on the program. Lesser PhD programs may not have this constraint, but they will also be less useful in your subsequent employment search. It is also the case that professors prefer (not necessarily consciously) to have students with minds they can mold, and older students often aren't as malleable as younger students. The masters option may not help you much; the market is saturated with PhDs, so there is little incentive to hire a lecturer with only a masters. </p>
<p>That said, go for it! As long as you embark on this adventure with realistic expectations, you've got nothing to lose. If you don't try, you'll always wonder about what might have been. If you give it a shot, you may end up happier and more fulfilled.</p>
<p>I wish you all the best in your ambitions. This kind of thing is relevant in a lot of fields as people make career changes all the time. There are forum boards discussing non traditional individuals going the medical route Nontraditional</a> Students - Student Doctor Network Forums</p>
<p>I would bet this also happens with veterinarians and pharmacists etc. These fields all have similar vetting difficulties including long training times, post doctoral training programs, junior positions and on and on. At least with a PhD you will be funded and not increase the amount of time that you would have to work to repay student loans/put off retirement savings.</p>
<p>I do realize that this anecdote is just one data point, but there is a middle aged woman in last years molecular biology cohort at my university.</p>
<p>I agree with most in that your age shouldn't hurt your chances of admission into a doctoral program. In my graduate program there are at least half a dozen students over the age of 45... and my program only has around 30 students in total.</p>
<p>I was actually speaking to one of these students earlier today about her career and education path (ie much similar to yours in that she chose a less demanding career over furthering her education right after undergrad so that she could take care of her children). Now her children have finished college so she has more time to pursue her other dreams and finish graduate school.</p>
<p>Also, my physics professor in undergrad was in his late 80's and came out of retirement to teach because that is what he loved to do. I went to a very small college so I would assume smaller colleges would actually prefer more seasoned individuals because professors focus on teaching and advising students, not so much their own research.</p>
<p>I have a good friend who began her graduate program in her 50s and recently received her PhD in history. Age did not hurt her in applications, and she got full funding, too. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that after you finish it won't hurt you if your goal is teaching; however, at the ultra-prestigious schools there may be some age discrimination. But alas, age discrimination is a reality in all fields. I'd say follow your dreams.</p>
<p>I am in a similar position than you, age 50 exactly, and moreover, European, which means it is even harder for me to get funding from U.S. universities. I am going to send application to one prestigious U. here in the EU, as being a EU citizen the tuition is quite low for me.</p>
<p>I am not waiting to have such a prestigious career ahead of me as the younger geniuses, but I have aspirations for research and writing, and I have already taught a couple of university classes, and with a PhD my hourly salary would go about 25% up.</p>
<p>I don't want to be the wet blanket, but yes, it will hurt you when you look for positions. History is already way overcrowded, and getting a job is very, very difficult.</p>
<p>I don't know why you think you can "fast track" your PhD, especially in history. A history PhD generally consists of 2-3 years of classes and comps. Most of the top-ish programs do not accept any graduate credit to reduce this, and the rest only accept a small amount. On top of that, you will need to write your dissertation. In history that will take you anywhere from 2 years (for US) to 5 years (for medieval, middle eastern, Asian). I am a history grad student, and I've never heard of any PhD student getting out in less than four years, ever, and that only in US history and with a bit of luck.</p>
<p>By the time you finish, you will be around early 60s. This, unfortunately, will make a difference in hiring. With the market being what it is, unis want a professor that will contribute to the name of the uni for a decent period of time. However, if you would be happy financially and otherwise either as an independent scholar or as an adjunct, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to finish your degree and be involved in the field in that way.</p>
<p>Nobody seems to have addressed #3, which seems like a good idea to me. The PhD is doable, but you are looking at an enormous life-style change that will last probably more than the three years you say. Even if your level of knowledge is significantly higher than baccalaureate, the graduate courses you might have taken before won't apply unless it was at the institution you were looking at and fairly recent. Even if you get funding, you would be cut down to the technical poverty level, so unless you have considerable family support (husband, kids) it will be tough to make ends meet. It's tough for me, a 20-year-old potential grad, who's used to peanut butter sandwiches and Ramen every day--I can't imagine having a steady income for all those years and suddenly having to readjust to the insane work loads, abnormal sleep schedules and empty refrigerators of university life.</p>
<p>With a masters you could teach in community colleges, which is a step up from your current position. I wouldn't bank on becoming a university "lecturer." I'm not in the humanities, but in the sciences they pay peanuts to newly-minted PhD's and wouldn't spare a bread crumb for a master's. Community colleges are quite nice places to be, or so my philosophy professor uncle says: you can pursue research (sometimes with funding), have some semblance of life outside academia, and delve into college-level topics with students who are really interested in being there (as opposed to teaching a bunch of 18-20 year-olds who would rather be partying and are only in college because Mommy and Daddy dropped them there and pay the bills--like high school extended). On the negative side, masters programs can be costly, but a) the time commitment to poverty is much shorter than it would be for a PhD and b) I'm sure with your experience you can get an assistantship to waive tuition.</p>
<p>That's my vote, but then I'm a recently converted potential Chemistry PhD who was disillusioned by the ugly realities of grant proposals and departmental politics. It's off to the happy world of library science for me....</p>
<p>I think it will be very unlikely for you to get a tenure track job. Age isn't your only challenge: a shortage of tenure track jobs in nonscience and math areas is. However, you may be able to get lecturer or adjunct jobs. </p>
<p>I don't think your age will hurt you when it comes to getting into grad school. I have friends who are in their 50s, 60s, and even 70s who are working on doctorates.</p>
<p>When I applied to grad schools I was almost 40 and I have a sneaking suspicion that my age disqualified me from the better programs. My only 'evidence' is a strange conversation/interview I had at one such school - it was basically a cold, 40-minute 1-on-1 lecture about how the program absolutely must be completed in 7 years, no diversions, no interruptions etc. etc. etc.</p>
<p>Going for a phd is no easy task but it’s worth a while. Whether you are in your 50s or 60s, I believe it is still worth it…just follow one’s dream, be it personal of profession. All the best!!</p>
<p>Wouldn’t that be age discrimination? And isn’t age discrimination illegal? And aren’t universities dedicated to egalitarianism and humanistic values? Surely nothing like that would ever happen there. . . . . . . right?</p>
<p>Yeah, I suspect your chances are going to be almost zero from the better schools. It comes down to resource allocation. Given limited resources, applicants in their 20s and 30s will be favored. Also, FULL professorship is an extreme long shot, even for someone who got a Ph.D in their 20s, 30s, or 40s. AND with years of working in the field beyond the Ph.D. You will most likely be close to 60 with a Ph.D. An unseasoned Ph.D has no chance getting a full faculty position in the US.</p>
<p>On average, the Ph.D programs at American universities tend to be longer than non-American universities.</p>
<p>I think you can get a masters and lecture at a smaller school. But many lecturers at the better or bigger schools have a Ph.D. It’s very competitive nowadays.</p>