A couple of years ago a reader wrote me to ask how old is too old to start a PhD

. Will schools penalize your application, and is it harder to get a job?

I blogged some thoughts in this spot. Not very deep ones. 18 months later, to my
surprise, it was my most-read post of 2014: almost 40,000 views. Clearly, it wa
s time to write a more thoughtful post. I sought input from readers and here s wha
t I ve got.
In my case, I was 28 when I started my PhD and 33 when I finished. There were a
handful of people older than me in the class, in their mid-thirties. Probably th
e median was about 25. Even though I wasn t that much older, my (tenured) advisor
was two weeks younger than me. That smarted a little.
Anyways, there were some clear advantages and disadvantages. I ll talk about what
I experienced, and what people who started older than me have added.
The short answer I like best came from one reader: if you re curious enough, never.
True, it is never too late to advance your professional career or your personal
fulfillment with a PhD. With two important caveats. First, you properly understa
nd the time, cost, and job prospects. Second, that if your goal is to enter elit
e programs and advance the research frontier, I think this gets tougher as you g
et older.
Admissions
If you re under 35, I don t think age will be a huge concern for an admissions commi
ttee. They are mostly concerned with your raw intellectual potential and ability
to produce distinguished research.
Naturally, an admission committee will look at your career and consider what it
says about you, whether it s going to contribute to or detract from your research
potential, and what the career switch says about your focus. So a lot will depen
d on your specific story and experience.
I ve sat on committees where experience was an advantage: political science applic
ants who had spent many years as international correspondents or in the state de
partment, economics applicants who had spent several years in Treasury or financ
e, or sustainable development PhDs with careers in environmental science. All ar
e field where applied knowledge is useful, rather than raw intellectual fluidity
and power (as in, say, in math or economic theory).
All the successful applied applicants I know, however, had a good rationale for
a PhD and a very clear intellectual and academic thread to their previous work.
On balance, I do think that thirty-something applicants are treated with some su
spicion, and that the burden is on them to make a case that they are going to be
intellectually vibrant and focused. But only a little. Don t sweat it too much, a
nd don t feel you have to write your statement defensively. Use your statement to
describe, like anyone else, what questions interest yo and how you want to push
the field ahead.
(For related advice, see my advice on whether and how to apply to PhDs, whether
an MA program is for you, and how to get a PhD and save the world.)
If you re over 35, I think admissions committees will start to wonder how much of
a contribution to the field you can make, starting late and presumably having le
ss time to contribute. This will matter most at elite research institutions.
Indeed, all of the above advice mainly applies to the top research universities
and PhD programs. Their goal is to train the generation who will push the field
ahead in terms of research. There are many more PhD programs that serve people w

ho want to research, teach, practice (e.g. in the private sector, government of

international organizations), or simply learn.
My sense is that there are dozens of very good research universities with PhD pr
ograms who not only are used to older applicants, but welcome them for these pur
poses.