Are Graduate Schools Less Likely to Fund and/or Accept Nontraditional Students? I once heard that nontraditional students are less likely to be funded for graduate school. Supposedly (according to this person), this is because 40+ year old students rarely get tenure track positions. Thus, I guess they aren't profitable for the school/program (perhaps unless they're self-funded). I wanted to ask if there was any truth to this.
I'm in my late 30's and am deciding if/where to apply for a master's degree (in a humanities field), but my long term goal is a PhD. Even at the master's level, however, would I have difficulty getting funding at my age?
Also, are nontraditional students more likely to be rejected? I know we present more of a risk for the program, as we're statistically more likely to develop health issues, have fewer productive years in the field, etc. Do admissions committees take this into consideration when evaluating nontraditional applicants?
*Edit- I understand that discrimination is illegal, but this can be difficult to prove since all they have to find is one flaw in your application or decide that you're not a good &quot;fit&quot; for the program. (And my questions is not about winning a discrimination case but about initial acceptance vs. rejection.)
this is because 40+ year old students rarely get tenure track positions.

False.  PhD students of any age rarely get tenure track positions.

Even at the master's level, however, would I have difficulty getting funding at my age?

Not because of your age; however, PhD funding is more common than master's funding.

Also, are nontraditional students more likely to be rejected?

In most cases, no.  You may experience confusion if the program has never had a nontraditional applicant.