I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on whether it is more difficult to gain a first job in academia if one is in their late thirties as opposed to being in their mid twenties. I’m in the former category and am in the process of applying for academic positions.

So far, three universities have not invited me for interview. I don’t know whether or not it is because of my age or the fact that I am not yet published. In the case of one university it can’t be because of my lack of publishing as the post was for a postdoc which didn’t stipulate a publishing track record in its person specific criteria notes, indeed it said that even people who had nearly finished their PhD could apply (in my experience, many PhD students are not yet published).

I recently gained a PhD and have several articles in submission with various journals. I have teaching experience and I’ve delivered papers at two conferences. Therefore, I’m just wondering if it could be an “age thing”. If it is to do with age, how can it be proved anyway? What does anyone think?

Were the others lecturer posts? If so, don't be surprised not to have been short-listed. Competition is intense and the panel will usually be looking for publications (in press and/or published), evidence of grant funding (with you as a principal investigator), teaching experience and teaching in higher education qualifications.

I agree with Ann - I would attribute it to your lack of publications. There are people with publications going for post docs because the competition in academia is so intense.

Yes, they were lecturing posts.

So you don't think ageism may be involved--at least with the postdoc position? I would presumably have to do a postdoc before I could get a lecturing job because it seems unlikely I will get a lecturing job without having my foot in the academic door that a postdoc would afford me.

But if age may play a part in the postdoc selection criteria what is to be done? A selection panel can use any excuse they like to account for a person’s unsuitability for a job, so in that event how can anyone know that age was not the real factor?

hey orian,
in my experience in the UK age doesn't usually matter much. compared to some places on the continent where it is an explicit criteria... like, no-one older than so-and-so will even be considered. relativ to that, i really find that in the UK people don't usually care about your age, as long as you seem able to do whatever the job description requires. so as there might be SOME ageism involved, i wouldn't stake much on that. not as an easy "excuse" for your not being successful ("well everybody is just ageist, that's what") nor as an "excuse" for not even trying ("well it's not worth applying cause they won't take me due to my age anyway"). might be easier psychologically, but is also defatist and will limit your real chances... it's tougher to admit to yourself that probably others were just better qualified, but that being more realistic it's also the attitude you need to keep going and to finally secure that job!

Orian, competition for lecturing jobs, especially permanents ones, not hourly paid, currently is very, very taugh, apart from some fields. It is almost impossible to get a lecturers place in a good university without publications, unfortunately. I assume, that competition isnt less taugh for postdocs, especially in good places. I hope that journals will accept your papers soon and things will get better:)

Shani and Verdy. Thanks for your advice. I suppose my real question is not whether I am the victim of ageism but how it would be possible to establish that ageism was going on in any selection process. I don't think it ever can be. No panel is going to admit to rejecting a candidate on age grounds.

I think you are right in that it would be very hard to establish.

Still, wondering how to establish that ageism happened presupposes that ageism DID happen. If it didn't then why think about how to find out? I am curious - do you think you might have been a victim of ageism? If so, how come... perhaps comments you heard or something?

I guess that's why I at least responded in the way I did. Cheers to you and good luck with any further applications!

Ask for feedback on why you weren't shortlisted, it's a very standard thing to ask for (i.e. no one will be surprised). With anti-discrimination laws in place, employers have to be very careful to state why candidates for a job were or were not short-listed. Always useful to know why you weren't short-listed as can then try to address that issue for the next application. Good luck with the job hunt.

Shani, at the moment I don't think I've been the victim of ageism because I've only applied for a few jobs so far. I suppose I'm curious because I assumed that given a choice employers in academia would (as employers have been known to do in the real world) go for young people because they would be perceived as being more ambitious and industrious etc. I know this is a stereotype but employers in the real world certainly believe it and base their employment decisions on it.

Ann, yes feedback would be helpful. As has been said by someone earlier in this thread competition is fierce and that is probably the reason I’ve not been short listed. My only hope is that some of my articles get published. The only thing about this is, as you know, the submission process takes ages. So in all likelihood it will take a couple of years for me to build up a decent publishing track record before I become employable. By then I will be over forty.

Well, if they offered a job to someone who has published less than you, who has lees experience in teaching than you but is younger than you than it would quite easy to prove ageism.

BTW, Orian, it is enough for a paper to be accepted for publication to list in on your CV, even if it is not published yet, so, it might take less time you think.

My friend, btw, in age of 37, with 2 only publications was looking for a lecturers positions almost 2 years and made around 14 applications before he got a job. So, keep trying!

why don't you apply for a senior lecturer job in a teaching university (B-League if you want). The salary is the same and competititon for positions is not as intense as in Durham/Cambridge etal.

I think it's unlikely that someone who has not yet completed any post-doc work will be successful in an application for a lecturership, let alone a senior lectureship. Even if the lecturing post was 100% teaching (rather than say 50:50 research/teaching), the Uni would require extensive teaching experience i.e. not just teaching but evidence of curriculum development, assessment design and formal teaching qualifications too. The problem lies with there being not enough post-doc jobs for the number of PhDs wanting them, and nowhere near enough tenured academic posts for the post-docs wanting them. Hence, competition for academic posts really is immense.

Orian could probably do a great job as a lecturer but he/she is competing against numerous other applicants all of whom are likely to have lots of research output (publications, grant income and hence are highly valuable to a Uni in terms of the RAE), teaching experience, curriculum development skills and membership of the Higher Education Academy - who would you shortlist? Believe me, I sympathise, I'll also failing to be shortlisted!