In which I am amused

So, my school held mock interviews this week, and I broke out my new suit and did one.

It was really helpful - the guy had some very useful tips about how to present myself - but the really funny part was that he could NOT believe how old I was. He graduated from college a year before I did, and said he would never have guessed that we were the same age. He kept saying how I didn't look any different from the other students.

(It was in the context of interviewing - that I looked young enough that I'd need to make sure right from the beginning to remind them that I have done other stuff before going to law school.)

It was pretty darn funny. I think he must have been smoking a little crack before the interview, but hey, I'm not complaining.

Comments

[Notorious Ph.D.]

See, now that's just nice to hear. I tell people that I'm almost 40, and I am weirdly disappointed that the revelation doesn't elicit shocked gasps of incredulity.

[Seeking Solace]

See, you can be 40 and fab!

[Psych Postdoc]

Good for you, what an ego boost.

[ianqui]

That's interesting, though. So when you're a lawyer, it might be in your interest that you're a little older and more experienced in life? That's nice.

I've been thinking about this recently because we have a couple of grad applications from people who are in their 40s, and I really wonder if it makes sense for people to go back and get their PhD in my highly impractical field at that age. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they faced age discrimination in hiring later.

[New Kid on the Hallway]

ianqui, that's an interesting question. I think the interviewer's point wasn't so much that being older/having more experience was necessarily a big advantage, but that since I *was*, I wanted to make sure interviewers realized that. I took it more as about making sure they understood who I was more so that everyone was on the same page than that it was going to benefit me, but I can't imagine it hurts me, either.

I've seen mixed stuff about reactions to older law students. Some people have said it's an advantage, especially once you graduate, because clients don't look at you and think, "Oh, crap, this must be like her first or second case!" - that is, they assume you have more experience (and hence authority) than you do (although in California apparently they have to put their bar # on all documents and that makes clear when you were admitted to the bar, so it erases some of that). And I think it's generally kind of second-career-friendly, especially if there's some way you can parlay your previous experience into something relevant to a law career (e.g. me going into education law).

But I've also heard that big firms are less likely to hire older students because they're concerned that older students won't have the stamina (or stomach) for the ridiculous hours that the big firms require, and/or that to have an associate who's older than their partner/boss would mess up the firm hierarchies. (The guy interviewing me is an associate at a big firm, though, so this can't be universal.) This doesn't worry me very much because I'm not (at the moment) really interested in a big firm job, but it's out there.

I do think academia suffers from age discrimination. I mean, I know people have complained that, for instance, it's hard to get ahead in administration until you hit a certain age, that academia discriminates against young folk. But I really think this is outweighed by an anti-older folk sentiment. I know a bunch of older students who've gone on to get t-t jobs, but I also know some who haven't. There are definitely schools that think, Let's hire the younger person so they'll be around for a long time, or (probably) who are concerned that older students won't bow to the requirements for tenure (again, will mess up the hierarchy).

What's funny is that the stereotypical face of a history professor is an old white guy (in tweed jacket with patches). So you'd think that being older would be helpful! And I think it can help with certain students, to make your words more "authoritative." But I think there's still a bias towards the younger candidates in hiring.

(Which doesn't mean I'd tell 40+ candidates not to go to grad school, but I think they, even more than the young'uns, would have to do EVERYTHING just right. They'd have to be on the ball from day one. But that's just my sense of it.)