
I got a Ph.D. at age 66 (2018) - sohkamyung
https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2018/07/its-never-too-late-stretch-your-wings-why-i-got-phd-age-66
======
Mediterraneo10
If doing a PhD will bring no career benefits, it gets harder to submit to all
of the limitations on one’s life that come with going back to a degree
program.

I took a break after I got my MA in a humanities field. I eventually planned
to return for a PhD, but then two things happened in the intervening years: 1)
I was already able to write up journal articles and successfully get them
published, because in double-blind peer review all that mattered was the
strength of my research and my familiarity with the literature, and no one
knew or cared that I had only an MA; and 2) I got used to traveling a lot and
having a very flexible schedule, because as my day job I established a remote
freelancing career.

Now people are interested in my research and inviting me to come back and do a
PhD, but I’m not sure I can ever go back to having to wake up early in the
morning, sit in a boring seminar, be pressured to take on teaching duties, and
not be able to escape to a warm country in the cold winter. (That’s me, others
may want e.g. more time to spend with their families.) I talk to my colleagues
and get the impression that I have _more_ time for research than they do,
because anyone in a formal position is saddled with bullshit administration
duties.

I realize that I am lucky to be interested in a humanities field. I know that
in hard sciences, you cannot meaningfully contribute to the field without
access to a lab and other such infrastructure, and therefore you have to go
back to a university position.

~~~
chrisseaton
> but I’m not sure I can ever go back to having to wake up early in the
> morning, sit in a boring seminar, be pressured to take on teaching duties,
> and not be able to escape to a warm country in the cold winter

This really isn’t what a PhD is like. A PhD is a _research_ degree - you do
research in your own time. You don’t have to be in seminars if you don’t want
to and you don’t have to teach (unless you need the money.) Think of a PhD
more like a sabbatical to focus on your own research. There’s a goal you need
to achieve but freedom in how you get there.

~~~
Mediterraneo10
No, this differs from field to field and from country to country. There are
only a tiny handful of departments dedicated to my subfield worldwide, and I
know that they all require, at the very least, attendance at a weekly seminar
so that you can share with your fellow students what you have been up to. In
some places, the department can demand that one teach in order to hold a PhD
position, or that one take part in the editing of publications produced by the
department (which can be so much work that it distracts from one’s own
research).

~~~
chrisseaton
Ah ok that does sound a bit rough.

~~~
jimbokun
Ha, in a "First World Problems" sense, maybe!

Not trying to say Mediterraneo10 should get a PhD, but PhD life probably
sounds very nice to many people in the world without the kind of freedom and
financial stability Mediterraneo10 describes. Credit to him/her in achieving
such enviable life circumstances!

~~~
looping__lui
Or credit anybody pursuing a PhD for being smart?

Very condescending comment tbh.

There isn’t much “fun” about PhD. People who “do it on the side” without
“university housing, pay and support” are borderline masochists.

Doing so on your own motivation without family/peer-pressure has my respect.
In a First World country generally you don’t have any benefit from a PhD...
Much different in “not first world”.

------
klenwell
My grandmother spent the last several years of her life living off a fixed
income happily occupied with continuing education classes at the local state
university. It seemed like a pretty appealing lifestyle to me. It occurred to
me that you might even mainstream the idea. Instead of building retirement
communities around golf courses, build them around universities. If I'm not
mistaken, I think I've seen small advertisements for such things in the back
pages of the New Yorker.

Given the costs of modern universities, and the current identity crisis
they're facing, this might be a new business model for them, especially if
wealthy foreign students are to no longer be admitted to the country.

At the same time, I'm reminded of an exchange from an episode of This American
Life about how in some parts of the country state disability payments have
become a de facto retirement and welfare system:

 _Ethel Thomas: You asked me a while back what would be the perfect job. I
thought about it, and I said that the perfect job, it would be like I would
sit at a desk like the Social Security people, and just weed out all the ones
that come in and file for disability.

Chana Joffe-Walt: At first, I thought Ethel's dream job was to be the lady at
Social Security, because she thought she'd be good at weeding out the
cheaters. But no. After a confusing back and forth, it turned out Ethel wanted
this woman's job because she gets to sit. That's it. And when I asked her, OK,
but why that lady? Why not any other job where you get to sit? Ethel said she
could not think of a single other job where you get to sit all day. She said
she'd never seen one.

I brushed this off in the moment. I was getting in my car. It was getting
late. And also, it just did not seem possible to me that there would be a
place in America today where someone could go her whole working life without
any exposure to jobs where you get to sit, until she applied for disability
and saw a woman who gets to sit all day._

[https://www.thisamericanlife.org/490/transcript](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/490/transcript)

~~~
whatshisface
That makes a lot of sense actually, because the reason we really need (as in
need, not just want) retirement and welfare payments, are because some people
are either not able to work or no longer able to work.

------
rfrey
I spent my 20s trying to get rich enough to become a professional student. My
30s too. Its looking like this is also how I'll spend my 50s, which are
approaching like a steam train. Bring on the MIT Golden Years Home for the
Intellectually Dissatisfied.

~~~
rajlego
Why do it through university when you have the internet and can more
effectively learn things by yourself?

~~~
tasogare
That’s tech biaised perspective. For a lot of topics there isn’t much
resources available online, or not of good quality enough to get started and
for this university classes are really helpful. Moreover, university and using
the internet are not mutually exclusive: a lot of universities offers remote
degrees. Depending on the languages you speak it can be very cheap (French
univ are around 400€/year + one travel for final exam).

~~~
rajlego
While I'm fairly interested in tech things, I don't really have a tech
background. Could you give me an example of topics with few resources online?
The majority of subjects I can think of have good resources online, the only
issue is navigating them as a beginner (which can be helped by finding some
sort of mentor).

There are sites like MIT courseware that are completely free and allow online
learning. Though of course, there are signaling benefits to online degrees.

~~~
tasogare
> Could you give me an example of topics with few resources online?

Czech and Sumerian. Too much ressources is also a problem, as you said,
because navigating into them is difficult for a beginner.

------
JoeAltmaier
My wife, with two BS degrees and a MS from Stanford, is currently enrolled as
undergrad with an Archaeology major.

Why? Insurance. She pays 1/5 what the open market would cost, even factoring
in the tuition and fees. Because she at 60 is grouped with young healthy
people.

The college is not upset about this. In fact they have a whole program and an
advisor to assist older folks in negotiating the paperwork.

~~~
arkades
What university is this where tuition plus school-based insurance is < 20% of
open market insurance?

~~~
JoeAltmaier
She only takes 1 class to qualify. Its the state school. Her insurance was
otherwise ~ $2000/month.

Her tuition is only that, and is good for half a year. The student insurance
cost is small and annual.

------
abdullahkhalids
When I went to submit a physical copy of my PhD thesis to the relevant office,
the person in front of me was an old lady, at least in her 70s or even her
80s.

We had an interesting conversation. She had completed a PhD in Greek
literature, I think. Self-funded. Taken the standard time. She was sorry about
all the domestic responsibilities she had put on her husband. She had, with
her, a younger friend (a lady probably late 50s, early 60s) to help her with
computers :D

Made me feel very differently about all the hard work I had done. Very
inspiring and uplifting. She said, she did it because she was bored and wanted
to go beyond her two Masters degrees.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
This suggests all kinds of interesting questions about the point of
university.

For undergrads it's clearly a combination of finishing school, networking
hothouse, and social club, with some education thrown in.

For postgrads, it's a long-shot chance at tenure (extremely unlikely unless
you're the product of an Ivy, but it's nice to dream) and perhaps some
improved job prospects. (Also unlikely, but not as much.)

For universities, it's a cash grab. First they get the fees, then they get the
bequests. Also, some education is thrown in.

Considering the age/wealth profile is now heavily skewed to the over-50s, it
would make sense for universities to cater more for mature students. Remaking
university culture as life-long access rather than here-come-the-teens would
break a lot of cultural expectations - but might also be the only way to keep
the university model alive over the medium term.

~~~
mbeex
> For undergrads it's clearly a combination of finishing school, networking
> hothouse, and social club, with some education thrown in.

Never was it for me, and I'm certainly not alone.

~~~
mathieuh
Yeah for me it was just the easiest way to get a job. Didn't really ever go to
lectures, was in the students' union maybe twice, got a flatshare in final
year with people I had met doing my year's industrial placement.

------
mmhsieh
As an undergrad I had a friend in the math department who came back to school
to get a PhD after some years of making enough $$ to retire on in software. He
did not aspire to an academic career. He just liked math and enjoyed spending
time on it. He helped us rando undergrads with our problem sets. He is one of
the happiest individuals I have ever met. A PhD makes sense at any age for
happiness reasons if you don't have financial obligations hanging over you.

~~~
hatmatrix
or family obligations

~~~
M5x7wI3CmbEem10
would it be better to do a PhD as soon as possible to prevent family weighing
you down, or to become financially independent first?

~~~
mattbk1
As soon as possible.

~~~
M5x7wI3CmbEem10
well...why?

------
KKKKkkkk1
A lot of people have a romantic perspective on grad school, similarly to how
the flower children of the 60s viewed travel to India. You turn on, tune in,
drop out, and go to academia to become enlightened.

It's not all it's cracked up to be. People are people wherever you go, and
you'll see the same shit in academia that you encounter outside, except you're
paid much less (if you get paid at all).

There is one big plus, and that is that you're not the only one who bought
into academia's narrative of enlightenment, so you're likely to get more
respect from your peers and family if you go to academia than if you do
meaningless stuff like sell ads for Google.

~~~
mjburgess
I'm a bit more sceptical/cynical even, about the people PhD programmes
typically attract.

Very low-EQ, highly competitive, highly self-regarding. In my experience PhD
departments are worse that top-tier software engineering groups, as PhDs tend
to be depressed and underappreciated in addition.

I think the whole model is one big mental health meat grinder, and the meat
going in is quite bitter in the first place.

~~~
steev
God forbid anyone pursues higher education because they want to become a
better researcher.

I would suggest you spend some time thinking about your EQ rather than
spending time on the internet posting nonsense generalizations about entire
classes of people.

~~~
mjburgess
I can only speak from my experience; and it seems perfectly reasonable for me
to do so.

I think the motivation "to be a better researcher" is quite narcissistic (in a
mild sense) in the first place. It's what produces such contention in similar
software engineering groups.

There is no conflict between this motivation and my description of the
psychology of people that tend to persue PhDs.

~~~
steev
I am completely baffled by this response. At a minimum, that is not what
narcissistic means in any sense of the word. I cannot understand how trying to
improve yourself, whether as a research, programmer, or just general human
being, makes one "narcissistic." I would love to understand this if you care
to explain.

Imagine having to work with someone that judges based on your education rather
than you as an individual! Probably something only a PhD would do, right? :)

~~~
mjburgess
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_narcissism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_narcissism)

> The meaning of narcissism has changed over time. Today narcissism "refers to
> an interest in or concern with the self along a broad continuum, from
> healthy to pathological ... including such concepts as self-esteem, self-
> system, and self-representation, and true or false self".[2]

PhDs typically have, as an aspect of their core identity, their role as a
scientist/philosopher/(..researcher) (cf. doctors _being_ doctors, etc.).

Concern with excellence in this dimension then can often lead to narcissistic
injury (aka., a threat to self-esteem, ego, etc.). ie., to fail to be
excellent is a threat to one's identity. It makes the whole affair rather
fraught.

Contrast with one's life passion being, say, a parent -- or a volunteer. A
passionate volunteer is typically a less bitter pursuit, insofar as ones
"psychological economy" depends only in sacrifice which is under one's
control.

The bitterness of the PhD world, which I observe, frequently comes with this
cycle: I am a philosopher; I am an excellent philosopher; but some other PhD
is better than me; so I am not the best philosopher; so I am a terrible
philosopher; but I must be the best philosopher etc.

And so on in ruminative cycles.

....

The building up of one's own intellect, one's own skill, one's own ... is a
narcissistic (self-oriented) project. The pursuit engages in a significant
amount of material and emotional sacrifice for the sake of internal
intellectual gratification.

It is useful for society that such people exist: those who act to further
their own ability to such (prima facie) pathological and self-destructive
ends. Those caught up in it, however, are often rather bitter about it.

~~~
scott_s
Most people understand "narcissism" to be pathological behavior. If you use it
to not mean pathological behavior, most people are likely to not understand
you.

~~~
dahart
I’d be careful with “most people” claims. A narcissist is in the dictionary as
“a person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themselves.” That
includes above average, not limited to a pathology (which people who are not
doctors are unable to diagnose). I’m certain I’ve heard and/or said something
along the lines of ‘oh he’s a bit narcissistic’ multiple times in my life.
Having completed an advanced degree, I’ve met quite a few researchers I think
are reasonably described as being a little narcissistic about their work.

~~~
scott_s
If you object to the word "pathological," then substitute "behavior with some
negative impact on others."

~~~
dahart
I object to projecting your own personal non-dictionary definitions on others.
Are you thinking of clinical Narcissistic Personality Disorder? That is not
the same thing as Narcissism.

~~~
scott_s
My personal usage and understanding is quite close to the dictionary
definition
([https://www.dictionary.com/browse/narcissism](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/narcissism)):
_inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity_. Those are
not positive traits, which goes back to my original point: if you use the term
not intending to imply something negative about the person, you're likely to
confuse others. That confusion is why this subthread exists.

~~~
dahart
@mjburgess _was_ using it to refer to negative attributes, and so was I. You
stretched the idea into something it's not by saying it has to be
"pathological", and that it has to negatively impact others, and you claimed
that unless people adhered to those criteria, the term wouldn't be understood.
Neither of those claims of yours is supported by the definition you just
provided, nor have you demonstrated that "most people" agree. Narcissism can
be a negative attribute about someone without being pathological and without
affecting other people in a material way. Being narcissistic is judged as a
negative attribute to have by the dictionary.com definition with the purely
subjective words "inordinate" and "excessive", but it doesn't otherwise agree
with what you said above.

~~~
scott_s
I am unaware of any colloquial use of "narcissism" that would include going to
grad school to learn more about a subject. Poster steev was also confused by
this usage. You are correct, I have provided no evidence our confusion will be
universal, but: don't be surprised if it is.

~~~
dahart
I don't speak for mjburgess, is that really an entirely fair or good faith
summary of what @mjburgess said? Is it the strongest plausible interpretation
of the comments above? If it was said that learning alone is narcissistic,
then I agree with you, that'd be confusing. I don't quite see that anywhere
above, but maybe that's what was meant.

Don't you think that researchers sand-bagging paper reviews with requests for
citations of their own work is a tad narcissistic? That behavior is rampant in
academics, among many other behaviors seeking public name recognition. I don't
fully agree with the views above, and they seem to have a pessimistic flavor,
but I don't see the word narcissism being misused according to the dictionary
definition you provided.

Anyway, I don't really care what the definition of the word is, it just seemed
like you had an extreme version in the opposite direction that is at least as
prone to confusion. It doesn't exactly help prove the point if your version
has the same defect, or if weasel words are used to back-up the claim, right?

~~~
scott_s
I think it is, yes.

> I think the motivation "to be a better researcher" is quite narcissistic (in
> a mild sense) in the first place.

This claim is independent of the negative behaviors; it's intended as
independent support by claiming that the desire to be a better researcher is
inherently narcissistic, without regard to the negative behaviors. As to my
personal definition being extreme: well, yeah. I've never heard someone use it
to mean anything remotely positive. The justification for using it that
context was, to me, non-sensical. But I am a descriptivist; words mean how
people use them. So I won't call it _wrong_. Just: don't be surprised if
people are confused.

------
johnminter
I think the key to a good exerience obtaining a Ph.D. is the choice of a good
advisor. My advisor explained that the process of getting the degree was to
teach us to find important problems and learn what we needed to solve them.
Typically, that involved collaboration. He also stressed that it was a
doctorate in Philosophy even though our department was in the Physical
Sciences and Engineering School. That advice served me well as a scientist in
a corporate materials analysis group.

Now that I am retired, I still find challenging projects to work on, mainly
helping to improve open source electron microanalysis software.

~~~
edge17
Are there also open source electron microscope designs?

~~~
johnminter
Not to my knowlege.

------
jmole
'Sitting at my desk, staring at environmental impact reports and grant
applications on my computer screen, I began to think, “They cannot pay me
enough to do this job.”'

Honestly, this sounds like most PhD programs I'm familiar with.

~~~
freetime2
I think the most important takeaway from this article is not that getting a
PhD will make you happy... but rather when you start having that feeling it’s
time to make a change.

------
dragonsh
Very inspiring to highlight education and learning is lifelong. Ph.D. even
though symbolism (not really needed if only aim is knowledge assimilation and
creation through learning), will serve as a big boost in confidence for middle
age workers, who think there aren’t enough opportunities for them.

Also Ph.D. gives chances to work with younger people keeping middle and older
generations more active and alive.

I hope to continue learning in my middle and old age like the post, not sure
of Ph.D. though. But may consider if it opens a way for me to work alongside
young researchers can learn new things from them and feel alive.

~~~
BeetleB
I think we should be careful not to conflate the pursuit of knowledge with
acquiring a PhD. The latter is a very constrained and narrow way to do it, and
can easily disappoint.

As I get older, the (non-financial) value of the PhD keeps diminishing in my
eyes, whereas the pursuit of knowledge hasn't. As I have less time on Earth, I
want to optimize my time, and much of PhD work is orthogonal to my goals of
gaining knowledge. A PhD will force you to spend years on an extremely narrow
topic (of course, acquiring _some_ breadth along the way). When you're older,
that time is precious. It better be a problem you really are passionate about.

Consider:

1\. You likely will work on your advisor's research ideas and not your own.

2\. You will have to fulfill several steps tied to the culture of academia,
and none of these is needed to acquire knowledge. But tradition is tradition,
and you have to do it.

3\. There can be a lot of politics involved - also orthogonal to acquiring
knowledge, but you will have to put up with them, play them, and suffer
because of them.

4\. Professors will often work you harder than you'll want at an older age.
Their rationale is often a variant of "Well, if you want a career in
research/academia, this is the workload you will have to deal with". But a 60+
year old usually has very different goals. Of course, I have seen plenty of
professors who are sympathetic to such people.

Overall, if you're at an older age, don't do it _unless you already have a
research problem you really want to work on, and can find a sympathetic
advisor who cares more about you than their own careers._

Disclaimer: My view on this topic is a bit biased. I spent most of a decade in
grad school (at a younger age) but eventually quit the PhD program. I was at
the point where I felt I had attained most of the benefits of a PhD except
that final paper (acquired a lot of knowledge, published in journal, lots of
personal development/introspection, gained much from being around the
intellectual environment, etc). I quit because my work was not good enough to
get my dream research jobs (in academia or industry), and spending the 2 or so
more years fulfilling my advisor's requirements knowing it would not lead me
to my dream jobs was just pointless. Sure - I could get a postdoc and do
enough good work there to land my dream job, but I decided it wasn't worth the
gamble.

I often fantasize about becoming financially independent and going back to
university and hopefully do some research (in a different discipline this
time). I do miss the intellectual discussions, etc. But while the studying and
research problem aspect appeal to me, I really don't have the patience to put
up with all the negatives I listed above. And I didn't even get into how in
some disciplines (or sub-disciplines), journal publications are a racket (with
both the publisher and academia being guilty parties). If I ever did anything
interesting and novel enough, I'd likely write it up in a blog post or at most
post to arxiv. I really don't want to participate in the current journal
publishing culture.

But of course, kudos to the person in this submission!

~~~
analog31
In my view, a broader statement -- not necessarily a counterpoint -- is that
the grad school experience is _highly variable._ For instance my own
experience was quite positive.

>>> 1\. You likely will work on your advisor's research ideas and not your
own.

You choose a professor based on how their research program appeals to you, and
there is often room for compromise. This is a conversation that happens before
joining their group. There are some benefits to starting with at least a
suggested project. In my case, such a project idea came with a fully equipped
lab including a quarter million 1986 dollars worth of gear. But my unique
interests and abilities definitely steered my project in a direction that my
advisor had not originally imagined when I started out.

In the humanities, where the cost of research is close to zero, you might have
more latitude, again depending on how you choose your advisor. I have a friend
who literally created her own project and pitched it to a couple of
departments who agreed to let her pursue a dual discipline PhD in education
and psychology. She was 60.

>>> Overall, if you're at an older age, don't do it unless you already have a
research problem you really want to work on, and can find a sympathetic
advisor who cares more about you than their own careers.

True at any age. I think that in general, there aren't really that many top
rungs for professors to grasp for, and most are comfortable having a
relatively stable career and focusing on the educational aspect of their
research programs. I live in the shadow of a great university, and some of my
relatives are professors, and this pretty much describes their attitudes. They
have their own grips about the system, but every system has a system.

I sympathize with not finishing, and would never hold it against anybody. One
thing finishing did for me was force me to keep going until my project was
really ready to go out the door. Granted that's something I would also have
learned the hard way, had I started a start-up, but that was just not on my
radar as a physics student in the 1980s for whatever reason.

~~~
BeetleB
> For instance my own experience was quite positive.

As was mine, despite not completing it. However, I don't think I'd want to
deal with the negatives at an older age.[1] To put it another way, if you're
older and want admission to grad school so you can learn a lot, and are not
too particular about actually completing the PhD, then you probably will enjoy
the experience and can ignore my previous comment.

Also, if you have the resources, a second BS or MS can be fun. I knew at least
two students who were in their 60's pursuing a second BS (one of them was
pursuing both a BS in math and physics, with little background in them). They
both enjoyed the experience and were quite content. However, a PhD is quite
different from that.

> You choose a professor based on how their research program appeals to you,
> and there is often room for compromise.

If you've had prior research experience, this advice may work. If you haven't,
then you will likely be wrong about whether a particular professor's research
program appeals to you - and you may not realize this until you've been in the
program for a few years.

> I think that in general, there aren't really that many top rungs for
> professors to grasp for, and most are comfortable having a relatively stable
> career and focusing on the educational aspect of their research programs. I
> live in the shadow of a great university, and some of my relatives are
> professors, and this pretty much describes their attitudes.

Having spent time at both a mediocre and a top school, what you describe was
more in line with what I saw at the mediocre school, and not at all like the
top school. Most of the professors in the engineering departments were
_always_ trying to climb the rung, and competing with everyone to do it.
Things got very petty. My advisor, who was already a Fellow of 3 large
professional bodies (IEEE, physics (AIP? I forget), etc), was still quite
competitive, extremely protective of his research, upset if a paper got
rejected and would try hard to find out who the referees were, etc.

I remember wondering why he was so invested in all of this. He was fairly old,
had achieved a lot, and what more could he achieve?[2]

He was not an outlier there. Even the more laid back professors would
eventually exhibit some of this behavior because not doing so would demean
them in the eyes of their peers (and yes, one of the benefits of academia and
tenure is supposed to be that you're relatively immune from this, and yet...).

Now at the mediocre university, it was more like you described. In fact, not
many professors even had PhD students. There it was more about the research
and not the career.

And yet, in my last few visits to the department (again, engineering), the
professors told me that even there the culture was shifting to being more
career focused. The pressure to get funding was much more, etc. The common
sentiment from people who had joined the department in the 80's through the
90's was "The level of work I had to do to get tenure (number of papers,
funding, etc) will not get anyone tenure now in this department."

I see you were in physics, and the experience there can be different. In some
universities it is less funding driven than in engineering, and there probably
are fewer rungs to climb (or perhaps they don't value those rungs as much). In
the top university I went to, the physics department was actually in the
college of engineering, so the pressure for funding, publishing, etc was
similar to engineering.

> I sympathize with not finishing, and would never hold it against anybody.
> One thing finishing did for me was force me to keep going until my project
> was really ready to go out the door.

For me, a lot of the problem was that I sincerely doubt anyone will ever find
a way to test my results. Unfortunately, a lot of theoretical/computational
engineering/physics is that way. Did I really want to become an expert in
something that no one will ever prove/disprove? It wasn't just my research,
but much of my discipline, and a lot of why papers would get accepted/rejected
had to do with groupthink.[3] It really felt like I was doing literature where
subjective opinion matters so much. I remember asking some of my peers if they
even believed their research, and for many it was a strange question: They
were in the business of publishing papers and getting research/academic jobs,
not seeking the truth. If it's publishable, it's good!

Ultimately, I picked the wrong area to do research in. Also, one of my
undergrad professors told me it was a hot, young discipline. He was right in
some ways but was mostly wrong. It was very mature by the time I entered grad
school, and that usually means a lot more time (years) studying to get to the
state of art before you can make a meaningful contribution. As a general rule,
I tell people going for PhDs to find a discipline that is not mature - it'll
be easier to make meaningful contributions that way.

[1] Arguably, I probably did not want to put up with it at my younger age, and
it probably contributed to my decision to quit, but it would have been one of
the minor factors in that decision.

[2] And several years later, I know - there were lots more rungs on that
ladder. There always are, until you become a president of a university or the
head of the NSF or something.

[3] Yes - they did care about your formalism, techniques, novelty of ideas,
etc. But there were far too many subjective ways to reject a paper as not
being interesting enough to be published in this journal, etc.

------
pkaye
I seem to remember California allows those over 60 to take classes for credit
without paying tuition. I believe for both the CSU and UC system. A met a few
who did it when I did my education in both systems. I hope its still around.

~~~
smegger001
when I was a college student I have to admit I resented continuing education
programs. Here were thousands of people like me were racking up of thousands
of dollars in debt literally mortgaging our future to pay for these classes
and there were senior paying little to nothing to take classes. I still am not
sure how we can justify a system where we convince impressionable minors that
they need to in-debt themselves for decades and then allow seniors to take the
classes free? this just seems inequitable to me.

~~~
wolco
It make sense. You could go online and take many of those courses or better
courses for free. But you signup go in person and pay thousands per year to
get a degree. That degree is a key that opens up employment opportunities and
wealth. Most people your age go to school for future employment opportunities
and pay the cost as an investment. The cost reflects the demand.

Seniors have no employment goals. There is no need to limit supply because it
doesn't affect the marketplace. These seniors buy books and pay for other
costs and schools can get additional government money. It helps society
because you have more educated people with additional knowledge who may share
back with the community at little cost.

~~~
codeisawesome
This opinion sounds evil to me (not a reflection on you personally).

> It helps society because you have more educated people with additional
> knowledge who may share back with the community at little cost.

Same could be said of younger people - but they can actually do the good over
many more decades than the senior people! So the social good is much more
compounded!

> Seniors have no employment goals. There is no need to limit supply because
> it doesn't affect the marketplace.

This has many assumptions baked in that are hard to justify, such as:

\- Younger people will 'flood' free PhD programs and successfully complete
them, the price is the only thing keeping the flood under control. This sounds
wrong because a PhD will still take time, effort & interest to complete.

\- The job marketplace for PhDs is a fixed pie and a zero sum game. This
sounds wrong because I buy into the belief system that more progress for all
leads to more jobs (and prosperity) for all.

\- It is morally justifiable to keep poor or disadvantaged - yet interested -
people, out of the hallowed academic gates, by simply pricing the programs
high. This is egregious for self explanatory reasons.

You are probably "telling it like it is", but I really hope that awful status
quo is overhauled for the better, and for more access to all - old _and_
young.

------
slavik81
Pierre Bézier (1910–1999) is a famous example of a late Ph.D. He was awarded
his doctorate in 1974.

~~~
logicchains
Seems he really went against the curve.

------
ipnon
Joe Armstrong received his Ph.D. at age 52.[0]

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Armstrong_(programmer)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Armstrong_\(programmer\))

------
dghughes
And here I thought I was doing well going to college in my 40s. I'm finding it
hard to get recognized at all ghosted interviews or no response at all. It
seems being new to IT (career-wise) is not for anyone over age 25.

~~~
ntwalker
Perhaps that could be a regional thing? The things I hear about the Bay Area
for instance make it sound like another planet. A friend of mine (27) just got
IT certifications (never went to college) and he has a cool new job in IT
support, working on becoming a sysadmin. But either way, keep trying!

------
unemphysbro
I enjoyed my PhD.

The challenge of coming up with ideas, writing proposals for compute resources
or funding, and trying to deliver on the research was fun. Most of my PhD was
industry funded so there was potential for product integration.

The added bonus is that you're around really smart and motivated people in a
variety of disciplines. I was exposed to the hard problems in Finance,
Accounting, and Economics hung out with opera singers, stage directors and
novelists.

The years I didn't have funding were pretty miserable. 40-60 hours in the lab
plus 20 hours teaching per week for $23K kind of wears you down.

------
gbronner
I see little difference between using scarce university resources to produce
human capital that will not be used and art.

I'm sure the author enjoyed it, but it, but it doesn't seem that she will use
her new educational skills at all. To the extent that her professors could
have done something else, she sucked up a lot of resources that could have
been used lot productively.

This will become a bigger issue going forward....

~~~
dntbnmpls
Agreed. There are a fixed number of PhD spots. What sense is there to give
that spot to a 66 year old senior rather than someone younger who will
actually do something productive with the expertise and credentials?

I'm all for continued learning but can't that be done in a non-credentialed
manner that doesn't disadvantage young people?

~~~
marceloabsousa
\- There are a fixed number of funded PhD spots but there's really no limit to
the number of PhD spots in a faculty. I don't know if this was the case but if
you can fund your own PhD, very few universities will refuse your admission.
Anyway, PhDs are extremely cheap labor - most of the research money is spent
on materials/hardware and travel expenses for PIs.

\- The vast majority of PhDs don't do anything productive with their research
topic or work in their research field later on. Doing a PhD is about advancing
human knowledge and a lot of personal growth - it has very little to do with
productivity. The current trend is that you get burned out and sick of your
research area and decide to do something totally different. There are very few
areas where you do a PhD for credentials or to advance in your career.

~~~
Mediterraneo10
The amount of possible PhD positions in a department is limited by the number
of faculty, because each student needs a supervisor. A supervisor can only
supervise so many students at once before he or she feels overworked, and each
PhD student to supervise may distract from that scholar's own research.

~~~
marceloabsousa
Sure it's a finite number but it's not uncommon for a faculty member to have
5+ PhD students. It all depends on the number of post-docs or senior PhDs they
have in the group. The major limiting factor is really money - if a faculty
member gets a $5M grant, they will hire as many PhDs as they want or even get
some faculty hire for the project.

------
coldcode
I was accepted into a PhD program in Chemistry in the early 80's but decided
to work as a programmer instead (and still do); I then thought about getting a
PhD in Computer Science in the early 00's but a professor talked me out of it
since it appeared that most of the jobs were in academia (right before Google
started hiring them in droves).

Oh well, two chances and no dice.

------
atemerev
This should be more commonplace. I have just applied for a PhD program in 37,
and got some strange looks and questions. Hope I’ll pass. :)

~~~
pottertheotter
Don't let anyone get to you! I recently finished my PhD at the same age. The
late Clayton Christensen[1] was one of the most accomplished business
professors and I believe he started his PhD at age 37.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Christensen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Christensen)

------
Priem19
Added this to my forum where I collect educational sources and similar
inspirational late bloomer examples:
[https://philomath.boards.net/thread/22/persistence-great-
sub...](https://philomath.boards.net/thread/22/persistence-great-substitute-
talent-martin)

------
drewmassey
I earned a PhD in the humanities before going into tech. I loved it, and it
was a tough slog to make the pivot. I know there is a lot of advice
encouraging folks to “optimize their human capital” but I spent my 20s full
time making my mind a great place to live in, and OP is an inspiration for
doing the same at any age.

------
WalterBright
After my uncle retired, he enrolled in a graduate program in vulcanology. Why?
Because he was always interested in volcanos!

My grandfather was a vulcanologist, too. He worked on proving the continental
drift theory.

~~~
082349872349872
Continental drift would have been accepted sooner if the oceanic magnetic maps
had been declassified earlier.

(a case of parallel construction affecting science: the data were only
declassified after they covered enough of the sea basins that it was no longer
obvious what the common boomer cruise routes were)

~~~
WalterBright
He did it by setting up measuring stations in Iceland. WW2 intervened and he
was not able to go back to get the results.

~~~
082349872349872
I hear the sports bettors are jonesing so hard they're even betting on what
will be a dictionary's "word of the year". If they're that patient, maybe we
should offer some continental plate racing?

(my local mountains are actually rebounding up faster from the last glaciation
than they are being eroded down by weathering — kind of the orogeny version of
Wirth's Law)

------
xmksv
Amazing! It's never too late.

------
blastonico
THANK YOU for sharing this. All we got these days are pandemics, deaths,
protests, anger. Even HN, that I like so much with all those brilliant people
sharing their great projects, is now politics and anger. I mean read about
your successful victory is inspiring. Thank you.

------
spsd
You are an Inspiration to me! Thanks for sharing your story.

------
ngcc_hk
It is good for him to find the journey he liked.

------
igammarays
Ugh, first world problems. I'm currently considering a Ph.D at age 26, but
this kind of story fills me with a strange loathing and determination not to
fall into this trap when I get older. If, at 50, I still need to go to an
"academic counsellor" who asks me "what I enjoyed as a child", then I'll
consider myself a failure. I don't think self-enjoyment is a legitimate
purpose in life. Thus if, at age 50, I'm still wondering "what I enjoy", I'll
consider myself a zombie. By that age I want to be dedicated to something
_outside of myself_ , some revolutionary new thought, or the advancement of
some great cause, even religion or God, or even just the well-being of my kids
and grandkids. Even a short hedonistic life of partying I consider to be a a
greater success than this kind of zombie-like continuation of academia with no
external goal.

~~~
anyanswers
weird. isn't self discovery a worthwhile goal?

