I completely agree with you Ann. However, I know that in many teaching universities you can even find staff without PhDs. So if you have a PhD and maybe some publications in the pipeline or submitted, it is not that unrealistic to apply for lecturer posts without post doc experience. You just have to sell yourself well.

Unfortunately, in this country you will find a substantial number of new universities which don't care much about research or the RAE and more about making money from tuition fees etc. Of course, these institutions lack reputation and cannot attract good researchers. Nevertheless they require some teaching donkeys in order to keep the business running and therefore are quite happy to employ lecturers with no teaching experience, with no publicatin record but with a PhD.

P.S.: Luckily, I don't work in such an institution but I know from my own experiences as a student that they do exist. Just have a look at staff profiles of so-called 'new' universities and you know what I'm talking about.

P.P.S.: Some new universities are very research active so I don't want to generalise but the black sheeps are out there and therefore I conclude that it's not that difficult to gain a lecturer post in certain institutions.

Thanks everyone. Some very interesting comments. I only wish I'd known these things before I did my PhD.

Age is an unlikley factor.
It seems that publications are important. Even for a post-doc position when such criteria is not expressed, if someone else who applied had one or two publications in good journals, it goes a long way.

The only way I can see age being a factor (in an indirect way) is during the actual interview process. I have just finished sitting in on an interview (the presentation section) and when the canidate left, we as an audience were invited to give our impressions for consideration. While age did not come up, there were comments regarding how the potential collegue would fit in the department. This seems a personality thing more than age.

It seems the c.v. gets you the interview (publications etc) and then other factors coem in for getting the job. But age does not seem to be one of those factors.

I agree that it is probably because of the lack of publications. Unfortunately, that is another thing we PhD students have to worry about. With not enough publications, well we can't really use our PhDs to go into academia can we? And with not enough publications we can't get a position as a Post doc, so getting more publications after the PhD is quite tricky. Yet another thing I disagree with about the "system" that imposes further pressure and stress

Given that it is publications that get you a job what is the purpose of a PhD vocationally? And why do institutions require you to have one if publications are what really matter? Yes, a PhD is good for one's intellectual self-development but, in light of this discussion, not for getting a foothold in academia it seems.