Is age an important factor in obtaining a PhD? or is it entirely dependent on the discipline of study, area, and/or offering institution?

Wonderful contribution there Len Leonid Mizrah Len Leonid Mizrah thank you so much for sharing

In real life, everything is more complicated. Russia has a two-degree system of scientific degrees. The first - "candidate of sciences" (equal to PhD) is considered as a level sufficient for independent work, but insufficient for leading a scientific team. The second level is Doctor of Sciences (full doctor). And if for the first level 5 publications in peer-reviewed journals are enough, then for the second - 15. Usually, a person defends a candidate's thesis at the age of 25-28 (master's + postgraduate studies), and a doctoral dissertation is defended already at about 40-45 years. Previously, in Soviet times, there were such forms of defense as "on the basis of the totality of works" (without submitting a dissertation, colloquially called "brick"), now this is impossible. I know a man who defended his PhD (Physics) at 21, right after graduation from the university, and his doctoral thesis at 28. But this is an exception. On the other hand, I know a man who defended his PhD thesis at 63... He had a lot of serious works, but his boss had to force him to defend PhD, because he "spoiled all the statistics" not only for the laboratory, but also for the scientific institute. According to my observations, having received a degree, he did not become smarter ...

Personally, I am inspired by the example of a famous French historian Pierre Nora (author of the "Memory space" concept), member of French academia («Immortalité») - membre #27. He does not have a PhD.

Quantitative statistics such as mean and standard deviation illustrates the population norms in terms of age of Ph.D. graduation. In addition to the discipline of study, area, and/or offering institution, many other factors are also relevant, for example, opportunity, intelligence, wisdom, andragogy, personality factors etc. Qualitative factors also apply. For example, brilliant students who obtain a PhD in their early twenties may also be wise, mature, and eminently suited for guiding older students. So a both-and rather than an either-or type argument seems more applicable.

Interesting thank you so much for sharing. This has really shown that there are a lot of different systems there and there might be not a single standard out there.......

I want to agree with you @Stephen David Edwards It has to be a matter of BOTH rather than Either or. Well put forward Stephen

The process of obtaining a PhD is different in different countries. Some use American style some use British style and so on. The suitable age is also different, it is depend on the candidate condition. The number of papers are also different, and has been subject to the time. It started from 0 up to several at these days. In 1987, my supervisor told me, in order to obtain a PhD you should be able to find a new (not solved yet) phenomena. Define it as an academic problem. Prepare the prior requirements. Solve it with detail. Validate it via comparing with bench marks and/or publishing in journals or by other means. Write it in form of a book, and submit it after approved by a COMMITY.

Now, after more than half a century, doing research and teaching, I came to a conclusion that, PhD degree also is similar to the other degrees such as diploma, Bsc, MSc and others. Most of the PhD holders that I have been in contact, also those having the full professor title, are not really a doctor of philosophy! They are good teachers, good writers, good editors, and so. All recommend literature review, submission of a proposal via a modification in the current state and etc. solution of the posed problem via super computers and publishing papers. No body is going to solve a problem from human beings. (The exception are those working with companies such as NASA and militaries, which are working to increase the power of the governments to bring the world under their hand). Any way always detecting and understanding a phenomena is appreciated independent of the age.

Age is relative.

However, it should not be forgotten that a doctorate can only be obtained after earning a degree.

Therefore, the doctoral path, depending on the universities and the various countries, cannot start before the age of 22-23, at best.

After that, any age can be good, as long as you have completed the degree course, which allows you to access the doctorate.

WOnderful sharings and insights. Thank you so much Stephen David Edwards , Abdolrasoul Ranjbaran , Gioacchino de Candia and Faraed Salman

Abdolrasoul Ranjbaran that's well explained as with Stephen David Edwards and I do agree with all the sharing. TQ so much all

As in any business, the question arises: "Why?". The vast majority of career people know why they need a degree. But, strictly speaking, a doctoral degree guarantees nothing. There are a fairly large number of people who do not have a scientific degree, but work quite professionally, at the same time, some, having defended their dissertations and received a good place in industry, administration, etc. do not write a single article in the course of further activities. Particularly striking examples are given by modern politics. Many "doctors" occupy positions which not require scientific qualifications, but they have an advantage over those who do not bother to defend a dissertation, because there is a belief that the holder of a scientific degree is the best specialist. In Russia, there is the "Dissernet" society, which analyzes the dissertations of "notable people" and very often in such dissertations borrowings, plagiarism are found, up to rewriting chapters and entire works of predecessors. A few of these papers have come under public scrutiny, but this has no consequences for dissertators, only for their "alma maters" (called "thesis factory"), supervizors and dissertation councils.

And age doesn't matter. Often a person defends a dissertation when he realizes that without a scientific degree his career will not develop. I know several cases when a person defended a dissertation in order to become the head of a laboratory, etc.

Dear Dr Tadiwa Elisha Nyamasvisva . I don’t think so, the age is very important but the academic level and hardworking of the student are the main factors.

Age should not be a barrier as long as the work done is qualitative enough, meaningful, productive in tandem with the requirements of the society and which enriches the knowledge base of the subject domain.

Dear Dr Tadiwa Elisha Nyamasvisva,

In my opinion, age is not an important factor since you can see that a lot of old person are sometimes more performant than young people (and vice versa). However, the discipline of study, the actual infrastructure of the university, the type of reserach conducted during a PhD and the disponibility of reactifs and materials (in time) are the keys factors to clearly determine the time in which a PhD could possibly be obtained (let's not forget that the choice of PhD supervisor is also a crusial / mandatory element).

Best wishes,

Sabri

Puede existir una correlación entre la edad como un factor importante en función del tiempo y de las oportunidades que tenga un profesional, pero tambien es importante la disciplina o área y en eso cuenta el impacto de oportunidades que tenga un país en el desarrollo de forma general son existentes ambas propuestas

A good part of the doctors in Social Sciences in Cuba, 10 years ago, obtained their titles after 45 years. That is changing and more and more young people are graduating.

The increase in the number of doctors in educational sciences and pedagogy in Cuba is an example of the large resources that have been invested in the education of new generations and society in general. This is of paramount importance and an expression of the strength of Cuban education, which puts us in better conditions to direct the future tasks of the unstoppable educational work.

Dear Dr Tadiwa Elisha Nyamasvisva, If one is hard-working and has strong will force and determination, age is not a barrier at all for one to earning a PhD degree.

For knowledge there is no limit ,Knowledge is power & depending on individal for his action he may evaluated what the power for him he may receive for his study ,knowledge for which even degree of university is not necessary an important .

For Phd or any other qualification or knowledge age is not essential as knowledge come from within with his mind & inner urge & divinity within for progressing the life of the knowledge .

This is my personal opinion

Aref Wazwaz , Shrikaant Kulkarni , Mohamed Sabri Bensaad , Rafael Antonio Martinez , Reinaldo Requeiro , Razina Sultana and Rohit Manilal Parikh thank you all for your rich sharing. Your views and contributions are duly noted and appreciated

Hello Tadiwa Elisha Nyamasvisva

What did you mean by the word "points" in your original post? Some of the others was obviously age and I was not sure if both meant the same thing.

And I would extend the point that was made by Stephen David Edwards that the statistics we are looking at are important. You cite the mean (I presume), what about median - and not to sound like a paper - and IQRs/range? I would find those very interesting as well although your point was a very good one already.

You're most welcome Dr Tadiwa Elisha Nyamasvisva.

Dear Dr. Tadiwa, the question is very pertinent to me as well, because I joined PhD at 55 and recently completed it after 4+ years. For me if the motive behind obtaining PhD is to attain high professional achievement, it may be too late but in case it is a passion and enthusiam to learn as life process then it is never late.

Thanks Achyut Nepal , Congratulations on your achievements we are all so happy for you. You fought hard to achieve your set goals. Joseph C Lee I a not quite sure which part of the post you are referring to.

Hello Tadiwa Elisha Nyamasvisva

I was only referring to the bit you wrote underneath the heading to say "30.5 points for engineering" and "34.5 points for humanities". I wondered how you meant with that point - is that age-related, do you mean?

Joseph C Lee Yes, those are the average ages by which candidates obtain their PhD in the mentioned area. SUbject to contestation though as these figures vary from place to place depending on many factors as others have highlighted in the comments

Most students average four to seven years to complete a Ph. D. program. Adding the four to five years of undergraduate study to earn a bachelor's, and another two to three years for a master's, students spend an average 10 to 15 years after first entering college.

There is no age limit for doing PhD but for getting scholarship there is age limit.

It is depend on all about scenario where we see the requirement of author if author needed to boost his/her professional career then he/she should do it timely because in the old age he/she cannot get any benefit as we see in some systems of education which is sadly demotivated senior people. Senior people have vast experience of their lives and they can do much more, may be they have to some difficulties to pursue new technology so if their experience and expertise Merges with new technology or they work with new researchers then we can get the best results. In this way new scholars can get professional development and senior scholars can give fruitful output for the society so, in my opinion age factor should be removed totally for PhD and benefits should be divided equally without age factor.

Age is by no means a determining factor when it comes to whether or not to pursue a Ph.D. degree. On the other hand, life experience can be an advantage for completing a doctorate.

Age for obtaining a Ph.D. depends on many factors. 1) Reason why they want to have a Ph.D. : a) To do research-purely passion (any age if they are confident) b) To upgrade their career (early age but still they should be ready) c) Just to have another degree ( Any age). 2) Efficiency: How efficient they are for doing a Ph.D., they own individual skills that include hardworking nature, commitment, morality, and research intelligence. 3) Life span development - as fluid intelligence progressively declines around 30-40 the topic on which they want to do Ph.D. matters the most (early age they can do topics that require more abstractive and fluid thinking like theoretical physicists and later age they can go with topics that require the use of crystallized intelligence like experimental physicists. 4) finance- In countries like India the researchers are not provided with basic support (except a few fields) - In many universities, they are not provided with stipends or financial assistance for conferences or data collection and all of which is an added financial burden to the individual and family. Also, Society expects and responsibility demands the individual to go in earning and are not treated with respect just because they are contributing to science. So in situations like that, it is better for the individual to do a Ph.D. once he is financially stable which in turn has many other limitations.

Thank you

I agree 100% with Anitha and will use myself as an example. All of her justifications for earning a Ph.D. when you are older have applied to me. I got my second Ph.D. because “I love to do research;“ because I found an “efficient” way to add on a second Ph.D. at UCLA by counting the coursework from the first Ph.D. towards the course requirement in the second doctorate (they have since closed that loophole); just “to add another degree;“ and “to upgrade my career” so that I could be prepared to write about where the two disciplines overlap (and I did go on to become a national expert on that exact scholarly point of intersection). So I think based on my own life that Anitha’s expansive thinking is quite accurate.

Dear Gregory Tanaka, thank you, sir, for sharing your journey towards your passion. Inspiring.

Thanks to Anitha Patnayakuni for your valuable answer. You have clearly explained all the aspects. Congratulations to Gregory Tanaka for successfully completing your journey towards a second PhD and sharing with us. I hope you story will inspire everybody.

Dear Dr. Tadiwa Elisha Nyamasvisva,

For me, age is just a number; curiosity and passion only matter.

I'm not sure if age is an important factor when it comes to studies in general, but for PhD one wise lady I met in a corridor once told me "strike while the iron is still hot!" This sums up my opinion on the topic of discussion!

To become a researcher in a narrow field of knowledge requires not only theoretical knowledge but also a great deal of experience, which can not be gained without time. Yes, age is important.

no its not important for me... you writte your thèse because you feel that you want offre New thing... to the humanity or add sommething... not because you are 27/34/65..it doesnt matter since its sincère

I think it is not important factor to obtaining PhD but the important factor for this is interest of researcher in particular research field and his or her knowledge about research methodology. With this anybody who is applicable for PhD obtaining PhD.

I agree 100% with Anitha

there is no direct association between age and postgraduation education.

I don't think age is a factor. I think 'fit' is a factor. I'm 59 years old and have been asked by a university in Melbourne to apply for a funded PhD position because my ideas fit with what the university is working on.

I don’t think age is important, however I do think you need to have a career plan which includes #altac careers too. For me what seems to my biggest barrier is the gender and age combination. As a woman aged 50 who had a successful career, then a long break for PhD and caring responsibilities it’s been hard to carve out an alternative career just because I have a PhD.

Age is important in everything in life not only P.h.D. Because once you become old, your energy and your performance will reduce. Passion and enthusiasm are different things that can not cover your energy level and ability of learning.

I had been working full time as a nurse and funding my own BSc hons and MA. By the time I was able to look into applying for funding for PhD, I was in my late 40s. I got it on the second time that I applied, so was over 50 years of age.

But by then, I had settled down and was so happy to do my research into 'Living with Faecal Incontinence' (as I was a nurse practitioner for bladder and bowel health). I was funded for 2 years part time and one year whole time. I then received funding from elsewhere for another full-time year. I had excellent supervision and also tons of support from my husband (bless him!) and my work base (including my manager), where I returned to - as arranged - after I had finished. I then carried out 2 follow-up studies.

So, this was the right time for me, I feel. Happy memories.