Is there a biological age drawback for comparable academic experience in order to get permanent position? I wanted to know if there are (potentially unofficial) limits about biological age in order to get permanent positions.
For instance let's say that you started your 3 years PhD about 27 (where people usually start it on their 23-24), for a comparable post-doc experience (quality of research, years of research), will the person that started &quot;later on&quot; its academic carrier be disadvantaged for permanent position recruitment?
For my example, I started 4 years &quot;late&quot; because I was a bit hesitatant about what to do for the future so that I completely switched of fields during my graduate studies.
Possibly in an unofficial manner?
Four years isn't very long, actually, so I doubt that there would be much of any effect. However, you can't rule out implicit bias of individuals independent of policies (or the lack) concerning age.
However, you will be judged on what you have done with your time. Changing fields is perfectly acceptable and people recognize that takes time. But the quality of your work and the recommendations of your professors will far outweigh any issues about age for most people. There is no accounting for jerks, of course.
But if people who have worked with you can honestly predict your future success, then you should be fine.