What do you think is the best age to start a PhD?

Woun

Just looking for some general insights from people who have completed/are currently completing PhD’s. Is there any age that is too young to take on such a commitment? Should you have attained a certain amount of life experience before progressing onto a Doctorate? Or does age have less to do with the matter than work ethic does?

Reasons behind asking is that I’m highly considering starting a PhD straight from my undergrad (Which I have been told by the supervisor I wish to work with that this would be very much possible once I ascertain the grades I’m receiving at the current moment).

I would be 21 years of age starting the PhD and I’m slightly worried that this might be seen as too young in the general academic community and afraid you wouldn’t be taken seriously.

So, any insights would be greatly appreciated.

Woun

Sorry should probably add the field of study: Psychology

danthefan

I've not done a PhD, but from being out in the big bad world I've found your quality of work is far more important that whatever age you are or how people perceive you. Not sure if the academic world works differently.

I know people who did their PhD straight after their undergrad, I know people who did their PhD in their 40s. I don't really think there's a right answer here tbh.

djpbarry

Woun wrote: »

I would be 21 years of age starting the PhD and I’m slightly worried that this might be seen as too young in the general academic community and afraid you wouldn’t be taken seriously.

I don't know what's given you that impression. I would imagine most PhD students are in their early twenties when they begin.

innad

the best age to start a PhD is whatever is the best age for you. I don't think there is such a thing as too young or too old.

Tom Dunne

I don't think you should worry about your age and being taken seriously, you will be judged on the work you produce.

Personally, I started in my late 30's (still doing it) . I think my life experience has been very valuable to me, l certainly feel I have a level of confidence and insight l wouldn't have had in my 20's.

Sarky

Same as. Age is irrelevant, really. The only things that matter are you being comfortable with making the commitment to a few years of solid research, and the quality of the work you put out.

harmoxe

I went straight from undergrad to a PhD (in science). In hindsight, I made several mistakes that I was lucky that did not effect my career.

The main risks are: a lack of academic experience and playing catch up for the first year or two.

By academic experience I mean that, in science at least, undergraduate gives very little insight into what are actually interesting things to do at graduate level. For example, at a popular science level, particle physics sounds awesome, but, in my opinion, anyone thinking about it for graduate study needs their head examined. It is absolutely necessary that you can critically examine any thesis topic or project.

Career wise, getting a PhD finished early is a clear benefit for non-academic careers. It is also a benefit in an academic career, if you avoid the pitfalls, but less so as here the quality and impact of the research counts for far more. I now find myself at roughly the same level as colleagues who did masters degrees before their PhD. I had to make up most of the time along the way. I would also note that many people who start their PhD much later, after a few years of work, tend to progress at a higher speed (there are many transferable skills).

Finally, I would say that this can be very group dependent. If your peers all have masters degrees you will find that there will be certain things on the "stuff everyone here should know" list that you will have to learn fast.

lfqnic

I think everything people have said here is good advice. Two other things though, which are implied but worth spelling out - natural intelligence / aptitude to your study and your level of maturity/motivation will make a huge difference. I know it's not a terribly nice way to put it, but some people are simply going to find a PhD easier than others, and if you are great at your subject now then, while a masters would certainly not hurt, it probably isn't totally necessary either. This is especially true if skipping it is becoming the norm in your discipline/college, as it is in mine. [I'm not saying they are for mediocre students - if financial constraints weren't an issue, I would have preferred to do an M Litt before my PhD, but when aren't they?]

Obviously there is a difference between intelligence and knowledge, which is what would make the extra years of study useful, but this is where your maturity and level of motivation count. I started ab inizio in my discipline in a class full of people who had studied the subject at school, but quickly overtook them not because I'm some super genius but because I knew I was doing what I wanted to do and I was mature enough to keep at it.

If your supervisor thinks you're able for it and keen enough to see it through, the only real question is is it what YOU want right now?