Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went for psychology but never finished my dissertation because life/kids got in the way. It’s a huge regret. I am still close friends with my classmates. There was no backstabbing at all. These are weird comments. Decades later in my early 50s I’m thinking of going back because I want to work as a clinical psychologist. However I have to start the PhD all over. I’ve been home for 20 years with kids and can see working for 20 after graduating. I wouldn’t assume someone older is doing it for a hobby or has nothing to contribute. The big obstacle is getting academic references 20-25 years out of school.

I am 57 and just went back to get a masters (which I know is not a PhD obv) in order to become a therapist. Best decision of my life. You don’t need a PhD to practice. And a PsyD is better for clinical work but there are easier ways than a PhD program. Go for it!

This is so inspiring to hear! I have wanted to be therapist, but I wonder if I have enough years of practice to justify the cost/time. (I am 50.). That said, there is such a need and I am drawn to helping children and families.

That’s wonderful but a Master’s degree is a very different kettle of fish!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of these responses are looking at it from the student's perspective. But a PhD is a two-way street. Taking on a new student is a big commitment for a Professor, both in terms of funding and time. TBH, they may be reluctant to take on a student who is simply doing the work for personal reward.

+1 professors are in the business of training professors, or at least serious career professionals. I don’t know any colleague in doctoral programs who would take on a student they thought might be a dilettante. It’s too much work! That student would have to have serious credentials to persuade a prospective mentor that at least they wouldn’t be a heavy lift. Even then, it would be incredibly tough to persuade there would be any meaningful ROI.

It' s bad enough that they are training young people to be professors who will most likely never be professors.

This!

A lot has changed in the past twenty years. Professors are stretched thin and are unlikely to admit any student who hasn’t been on a traditional track and who doesn’t have exceptional credentials. This is in part an ethical matter, since gainful employment for any PhD recipient is questionable these days. And the professors don’t want to invest a considerable amount of time and effort for nothing. I don’t think there is such a thing as a “hobby PhD” anymore.

If a 50+ person finds a willing potential mentor and is realistic about the outcomes, I guess why not. But there are so many disadvantages and hardships at every stage, it’s hard to see the value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of these responses are looking at it from the student's perspective. But a PhD is a two-way street. Taking on a new student is a big commitment for a Professor, both in terms of funding and time. TBH, they may be reluctant to take on a student who is simply doing the work for personal reward.

This. They will be very reluctant to take on a student who will essentially be a dilettante.

Does anyone know of a 50+ PhD who has gotten a tenure-line position in academia? Institutions invest a lot of money in TL faculty, no incentive to invest in an older candidate who will be retirement age if they get through the ~6 year long tenure process. It makes sense that this could be different in industry.

Starting at tenure track past 50 could literally kill you. Most universities are eliminating tenure for adjuncts that they can pay nothing, no benefits.

Anonymous wrote:If you can get someone else to pay for it, sure. On your own dime? No.

It is very rare for Ph.D. RAs/TAs to go to nontrad (i.e., older) grad students. If you want to pay your own way and find an advisor who is happy to work with you, go for it. But, echoing several people above, there is absolutely no reason to get a Ph.D. unless you absolutely need a Ph.D. (are planning a career that requires one). It is basically a 4+-year-long dive into very detailed, arcane problems (training on how to do doctoral level research). There were a couple of older Ph.D. students in my cohort (both well-off retirees) - I don't think either finished, but they seemed to be having fun and we were always grateful for their perspectives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of these responses are looking at it from the student's perspective. But a PhD is a two-way street. Taking on a new student is a big commitment for a Professor, both in terms of funding and time. TBH, they may be reluctant to take on a student who is simply doing the work for personal reward.

+1 professors are in the business of training professors, or at least serious career professionals. I don’t know any colleague in doctoral programs who would take on a student they thought might be a dilettante. It’s too much work! That student would have to have serious credentials to persuade a prospective mentor that at least they wouldn’t be a heavy lift. Even then, it would be incredibly tough to persuade there would be any meaningful ROI.

It' s bad enough that they are training young people to be professors who will most likely never be professors.

I hadn’t thought about it, but the ROI point makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:Most of these responses are looking at it from the student's perspective. But a PhD is a two-way street. Taking on a new student is a big commitment for a Professor, both in terms of funding and time. TBH, they may be reluctant to take on a student who is simply doing the work for personal reward.

+1 professors are in the business of training professors, or at least serious career professionals. I don’t know any colleague in doctoral programs who would take on a student they thought might be a dilettante. It’s too much work! That student would have to have serious credentials to persuade a prospective mentor that at least they wouldn’t be a heavy lift. Even then, it would be incredibly tough to persuade there would be any meaningful ROI.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of these responses are looking at it from the student's perspective. But a PhD is a two-way street. Taking on a new student is a big commitment for a Professor, both in terms of funding and time. TBH, they may be reluctant to take on a student who is simply doing the work for personal reward.

This. They will be very reluctant to take on a student who will essentially be a dilettante.

Does anyone know of a 50+ PhD who has gotten a tenure-line position in academia? Institutions invest a lot of money in TL faculty, no incentive to invest in an older candidate who will be retirement age if they get through the ~6 year long tenure process. It makes sense that this could be different in industry.

I don’t know anyone in the humanities who has obtained a professorship at that age, but this is in DC. What a PP said about more pre-professional fields and less desirable locations could be true though.

I think the biggest hurdle for a 50+ person aspiring to the PhD is gaining admission in the first place. If it’s a larger program that admits self-pay students, maybe, but most programs I’m familiar with take a very small number of students who have serious depth in academic and professional qualifications and who are then funded. In exchange they are expected to TA, which is another skill not everyone has. My colleagues teaching in PhD programs are looking for the whole package. Someone who hasn’t been on the professional track usually finds it difficult if not impossible to be competitive.

This is something privileged people can do by just consulting with strangers in DCUM. The rest of society needs to think things through and discuss with spouse (if there is one) and think about their kids if nor yet an empty nester. I'm going to assume OP doesn't need to deal with elderly parents either because needing to use a lot of family leave is going to prolong the Ph.D. process even more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went for psychology but never finished my dissertation because life/kids got in the way. It’s a huge regret. I am still close friends with my classmates. There was no backstabbing at all. These are weird comments. Decades later in my early 50s I’m thinking of going back because I want to work as a clinical psychologist. However I have to start the PhD all over. I’ve been home for 20 years with kids and can see working for 20 after graduating. I wouldn’t assume someone older is doing it for a hobby or has nothing to contribute. The big obstacle is getting academic references 20-25 years out of school.

I am 57 and just went back to get a masters (which I know is not a PhD obv) in order to become a therapist. Best decision of my life. You don’t need a PhD to practice. And a PsyD is better for clinical work but there are easier ways than a PhD program. Go for it!

This is so inspiring to hear! I have wanted to be therapist, but I wonder if I have enough years of practice to justify the cost/time. (I am 50.). That said, there is such a need and I am drawn to helping children and families.

Just do it!!!

Anonymous wrote:I went for psychology but never finished my dissertation because life/kids got in the way. It’s a huge regret. I am still close friends with my classmates. There was no backstabbing at all. These are weird comments. Decades later in my early 50s I’m thinking of going back because I want to work as a clinical psychologist. However I have to start the PhD all over. I’ve been home for 20 years with kids and can see working for 20 after graduating. I wouldn’t assume someone older is doing it for a hobby or has nothing to contribute. The big obstacle is getting academic references 20-25 years out of school.

I am 57 and just went back to get a masters (which I know is not a PhD obv) in order to become a therapist. Best decision of my life. You don’t need a PhD to practice. And a PsyD is better for clinical work but there are easier ways than a PhD program. Go for it!

Anonymous wrote:Why? It is only to pursue a vanity title to do this in one's 50s, not a career moving endeavor. Somehow you will have to find a way to give this legs for the next however many years after, but it doesn't translate to any really big career changes or money.

Perhaps someone this age has something that they would like to contribute to the field of research? Perhaps the person wants to manage a research organization and can't do it without the PhD credential? I can think of many reasons other than "vanity" where a late-career individual would want to pursue this.