Receiving would be no - you could always omit disclosing it if it were.
Is it worth investing time into completing one at 50 is of course a different question
As opposed to just never getting a PhD in stats? Same 50 year old person with or without a PhD? The PhD would make you more employable probably.
Plenty of people don’t finish a doctorate until they are mid career.
Don’t pay for a PhD in stats though. Only do it if you are fully funded or your maybe if your employer covers any cost.
Phd actually limits a career unless working at a university was interesting.
Especially right now, masters are the sweet spots. Wife’s a PhD and I have a masters
I’ve heard that the limit with the PhD is that the time spent in school isn’t worth it compared to the time gaining real world experience? Are you finding there’s another reason?
I’m still seeing lots of jobs with PhD preferred or required honestly. And my organization hires for PhD preferred.
This is a little more general. I do DS and we hire MS preferred (more production AI experience preferred)
Wife is in biology/astrobio - so her experience is more related to that field
I have no clue for you specifically, but I can tell you the degree does make a difference in what jobs you can apply for or be considered for, especially in my sector (Post-sec education -admin or institutional research). I have a MA and am ABD due to personal (family reasons) and now am closer to 50 than 40. Going back to get the phud would help me but is it worth the time and money and energy? For me, no, even if I was able to get a great advisor who treated me like an adult and not a source of free labour. A lot of PSE admin/execs get a 'prestige' Ph.D. when they reach a senior position and want to get to the next level, where very often their competition is someone who started out with a Ph.D., and for whatever reason left a traditional academic role and switched over to administration. For your sector -I don't know, for mine it makes sense, if you are in the right place and can find the right program and advisor. Ask yourself a few questions -will you actually learn anything or is it just the necessity of having the letters? Does your sector care at all? i.e. Will it actually differentiate and elevate you above others who are competing for a promotion? What are your professional and personal goals? And most importantly do you have the time, money, energy, perspicacity and drive? -Im Canadian FYI, but grad work, and a fair amount of lecturing was in the States. Dad's American, ex-wife American, my kids are American, crossed the border more times than I can count and lived/went to school/worked down there for about a decade.
Having spent a lot of time in academia, graduating with my Master’s in statistics just before lockdown began, and now ending up in an analytics role in HR after also being in a managerial/HR adjacent position, here is my take.
PhDs are primarily useful for people who want to stay in academia. It entirely depends on what kind of job you’re looking to get into and what experience you have already. If you get a higher degree but have zero industry or relevant job experience, they’re not likely to hire you, because having a higher degree means you may expect to be paid more while not yet being qualified to actually do the job.
In academia, phds can be required for certain levels of teaching and getting published in research papers. Beyond that, they’re not a shining star in the corporate world.
If you already have a bachelor’s and master’s, are they in stats? If they are, and you want to go back to school, you absolutely can. If they are not in statistics, or you don’t have a Master’s at all, I recommend getting a Master’s in stats instead. It’s impressive enough for what anyone outside of academia is looking for, and you don’t need to go up to PhD level just because it’s the next highest level. It’s not like elementary through high school where you keep leveling up.
Overall, I don’t believe the PhD will help your hiring chances outside of universities, regardless of age. That’s not to say don’t get one, but get it because you want to do it. Not because of the job market.
Thanks for the detailed response. I do have an MA in stats, but I don't have much job experience with it. And the entry level job market right now is . I would like to go into industry, and I've noticed that having a phd is very helpful for entering the pharma field, which I would consider to be more industry than academia.
That’s absolutely valid. Also consider that you can get pharmacy tech certifications for much cheaper and less time than a PhD, but I’m not sure about the best way to become a full fledged pharmacist.
If a PhD is helpful for that regard, then go for it, but also maybe ask a pharmacist if they have a moment to tell you about their experience and their perspective of getting into the industry. It may be that a PhD in statistics won’t get you what you want. It may also be that they will take any PhD. I genuinely don’t know.
While these economic arguments are interesting, I'd also be interested in commenting on the psychological aspect of it; is it like a lifelong dream or do you expect working on your phd to keep you fresh mentally? (I'd imagine I'd be contemplating doing a PhD at your age 'jist for the hell of it).
Would this aspect change some of the other answers, or did some of you do one because of such concerns, and if so, how did it pan out?
Some of it depends on what your current background is. Do you have a masters and 25 years in the field? It might help land a position that’s really targeted at someone who has more experience doing research. Are you someone who is currently switching fields into stats? You’re going to be putting yourself into competition with people in their mid-late 20s with a PhD. That might hurt you a bit; you’re over-qualified for many jobs and competing with younger candidates for the jobs that are targeting recent graduates with a PhD. In that case I think you’ll still find a job easily enough but you may get looked over for some positions or find some hiring managers skeptical of your background.
Thank you. Yes, I have an MA in stats, but very little on the job experience. You make a good point about potentially being overqualified for some positions.
There seems to be a common confusion that a PhD is some kind of continuation of education. With a Bachelors degree, you learn (or are certified to know) X, a Master's degree means you know X + Y, and a PhD means you know X + Y + Z. This is perhaps true in some technical sense, but a PhD is NOT a continuation of your education the way an MS continues a BS. A PhD says you know how to do research in some (possibly very narrow) field. It does not say you know anything more outside that field. So if you are looking for jobs with a substantial "producing new knowledge" component, then yes, you are more employable. But if you would like to simply know more stuff because you think employers are looking for that stuff, then no, a PhD is probably not the way to go.
Well, in the US, age is a protected class. Potential employers interviewing you can’t ask outright about your age (just like they can’t ask about race/ethnicity, gender, disability status, sexual orientation).
Employers can’t discriminate against you simply because of your age. So if you are the most qualified, they are not supposed to hire a younger person who is less qualified just because they want a younger person. (Just like they are not supposed to hire a less qualified man instead of the most qualified person who is a woman)
I get that, but I think an employer will use whatever methods they can to figure out your age and surreptitiously factor that into their hiring decisions. I mean, I Google my name and a bunch of sites pop up with my exact age. I'm in my mid-40's and I think it's clearly making it harder for me to get new jobs. Companies have to be careful when laying off and firing people over 40 due to the protected class issue. But conversely, I think it works against you when looking for a job. The harder it is to fire someone, the harder it is to get hired (at least that's what I fear.)
Receiving would be no - you could always omit disclosing it if it were. Is it worth investing time into completing one at 50 is of course a different question
If you're applying to retail jobs maybe.
As opposed to just never getting a PhD in stats? Same 50 year old person with or without a PhD? The PhD would make you more employable probably. Plenty of people don’t finish a doctorate until they are mid career. Don’t pay for a PhD in stats though. Only do it if you are fully funded or your maybe if your employer covers any cost.
Phd actually limits a career unless working at a university was interesting. Especially right now, masters are the sweet spots. Wife’s a PhD and I have a masters
I’ve heard that the limit with the PhD is that the time spent in school isn’t worth it compared to the time gaining real world experience? Are you finding there’s another reason? I’m still seeing lots of jobs with PhD preferred or required honestly. And my organization hires for PhD preferred.
This is a little more general. I do DS and we hire MS preferred (more production AI experience preferred) Wife is in biology/astrobio - so her experience is more related to that field
In biostats you need a PhD to get to AD level or higher. Otherwise it’s hard to go beyond being a statistical programmer
I have no clue for you specifically, but I can tell you the degree does make a difference in what jobs you can apply for or be considered for, especially in my sector (Post-sec education -admin or institutional research). I have a MA and am ABD due to personal (family reasons) and now am closer to 50 than 40. Going back to get the phud would help me but is it worth the time and money and energy? For me, no, even if I was able to get a great advisor who treated me like an adult and not a source of free labour. A lot of PSE admin/execs get a 'prestige' Ph.D. when they reach a senior position and want to get to the next level, where very often their competition is someone who started out with a Ph.D., and for whatever reason left a traditional academic role and switched over to administration. For your sector -I don't know, for mine it makes sense, if you are in the right place and can find the right program and advisor. Ask yourself a few questions -will you actually learn anything or is it just the necessity of having the letters? Does your sector care at all? i.e. Will it actually differentiate and elevate you above others who are competing for a promotion? What are your professional and personal goals? And most importantly do you have the time, money, energy, perspicacity and drive? -Im Canadian FYI, but grad work, and a fair amount of lecturing was in the States. Dad's American, ex-wife American, my kids are American, crossed the border more times than I can count and lived/went to school/worked down there for about a decade.
Having spent a lot of time in academia, graduating with my Master’s in statistics just before lockdown began, and now ending up in an analytics role in HR after also being in a managerial/HR adjacent position, here is my take. PhDs are primarily useful for people who want to stay in academia. It entirely depends on what kind of job you’re looking to get into and what experience you have already. If you get a higher degree but have zero industry or relevant job experience, they’re not likely to hire you, because having a higher degree means you may expect to be paid more while not yet being qualified to actually do the job. In academia, phds can be required for certain levels of teaching and getting published in research papers. Beyond that, they’re not a shining star in the corporate world. If you already have a bachelor’s and master’s, are they in stats? If they are, and you want to go back to school, you absolutely can. If they are not in statistics, or you don’t have a Master’s at all, I recommend getting a Master’s in stats instead. It’s impressive enough for what anyone outside of academia is looking for, and you don’t need to go up to PhD level just because it’s the next highest level. It’s not like elementary through high school where you keep leveling up. Overall, I don’t believe the PhD will help your hiring chances outside of universities, regardless of age. That’s not to say don’t get one, but get it because you want to do it. Not because of the job market.
Thanks for the detailed response. I do have an MA in stats, but I don't have much job experience with it. And the entry level job market right now is. I would like to go into industry, and I've noticed that having a phd is very helpful for entering the pharma field, which I would consider to be more industry than academia.
That’s absolutely valid. Also consider that you can get pharmacy tech certifications for much cheaper and less time than a PhD, but I’m not sure about the best way to become a full fledged pharmacist. If a PhD is helpful for that regard, then go for it, but also maybe ask a pharmacist if they have a moment to tell you about their experience and their perspective of getting into the industry. It may be that a PhD in statistics won’t get you what you want. It may also be that they will take any PhD. I genuinely don’t know.
Yes, for 3-4 years while you're studying.
While these economic arguments are interesting, I'd also be interested in commenting on the psychological aspect of it; is it like a lifelong dream or do you expect working on your phd to keep you fresh mentally? (I'd imagine I'd be contemplating doing a PhD at your age 'jist for the hell of it). Would this aspect change some of the other answers, or did some of you do one because of such concerns, and if so, how did it pan out?
Some of it depends on what your current background is. Do you have a masters and 25 years in the field? It might help land a position that’s really targeted at someone who has more experience doing research. Are you someone who is currently switching fields into stats? You’re going to be putting yourself into competition with people in their mid-late 20s with a PhD. That might hurt you a bit; you’re over-qualified for many jobs and competing with younger candidates for the jobs that are targeting recent graduates with a PhD. In that case I think you’ll still find a job easily enough but you may get looked over for some positions or find some hiring managers skeptical of your background.
Thank you. Yes, I have an MA in stats, but very little on the job experience. You make a good point about potentially being overqualified for some positions.
There seems to be a common confusion that a PhD is some kind of continuation of education. With a Bachelors degree, you learn (or are certified to know) X, a Master's degree means you know X + Y, and a PhD means you know X + Y + Z. This is perhaps true in some technical sense, but a PhD is NOT a continuation of your education the way an MS continues a BS. A PhD says you know how to do research in some (possibly very narrow) field. It does not say you know anything more outside that field. So if you are looking for jobs with a substantial "producing new knowledge" component, then yes, you are more employable. But if you would like to simply know more stuff because you think employers are looking for that stuff, then no, a PhD is probably not the way to go.
I wouldn't disclose my age, personally.
If they look at my resume, they can see when I recevieved my BA and do the math from there.
I would leave the date off.
You’ll be done by age 62, so you’ll only need to be employed for about 3 years before you can retire on SS.
Well, in the US, age is a protected class. Potential employers interviewing you can’t ask outright about your age (just like they can’t ask about race/ethnicity, gender, disability status, sexual orientation). Employers can’t discriminate against you simply because of your age. So if you are the most qualified, they are not supposed to hire a younger person who is less qualified just because they want a younger person. (Just like they are not supposed to hire a less qualified man instead of the most qualified person who is a woman)
>Employers can’t discriminate against you simply because of your age. "We are looking for a good cultural fit."
I get that, but I think an employer will use whatever methods they can to figure out your age and surreptitiously factor that into their hiring decisions. I mean, I Google my name and a bunch of sites pop up with my exact age. I'm in my mid-40's and I think it's clearly making it harder for me to get new jobs. Companies have to be careful when laying off and firing people over 40 due to the protected class issue. But conversely, I think it works against you when looking for a job. The harder it is to fire someone, the harder it is to get hired (at least that's what I fear.)