Age whilst illegal when considered as part of a recruitment process is a misnomer too; there are sub aspects as a “consequence of age” that are more useful to consider such as;

Variety of experience
Stage of career
Level of distress of role

Age is a misnomer. Whilst its an indicator of how long you have been alive it does not shed much light on the above aspects.

If an older person makes a career decision it tends to be better informed as they naturally know themselves better and be more aware of what roles and how they meet or not their requirements. Also later in career people tend to wish to give back which for example makes better interim material. When one is younger you are on the make and often agressively proving oneself (we’ve all been young!). There are too some very agressive still looking to prove themselves at 65!

Regardless of seniority is age an indicator of experience? If someone has been employed for 30 years how many times have they replicated the same day twice?

Age does have some positive and negitive aspects although clearly fitness and mental agility naturally decline as you get older. I have rejected some older people as they simply are not strong or mentally agile enough.

So if the process is fair transparent and inclusive and there is a code to follow then the decision SHOULD be good.


Objective is a tricky expectation as we are human and we are full of aspects that make it very dificult to make non prejudicial decisions.

Most decision making in recruitment will be primevally based upon are they like me?

So probably the only certainty is if the interviewer is the same age you have a better chance of getting the job.