Sabbatical programs often kick in after a certain number of years. A more structured program could indicate being more receptive to higher tenure / older populations: https://www.levels.fyi/benefits/Sabbatical/
But I don't put any stock in (non-professor) sabbatical programs, specifically, anymore, at least not the month-ish kind.
It's easy for a company to advertise sabbaticals, whether they mean it or not (e.g., no cost if you layoff or have a hostile work environment in the first 5 years), and there's also odd incentives, as well as perceptions.
For one example, you can imagine a stereotypical coked-up CEO saying, "If someone is still here in 5 years, they must be complacent, not top players. Sabbatical means they document their duties, and we send them home for 4 weeks, to test whether the docs are enough. It's time to check the freshness date, bro."
And on the employee side, you can imagine people approaching 5-6 years holding out a little longer for that bonus/vacation, but seeing no real refresh of incentive after (unlike RSUs). I've seen industry sabbaticals like this used for job-hunting, and the occasion almost looks like a sign that's time.
(With professors, OTOH, it's different: it might be a year, and a chance to refresh your research, break into a new area, write a book, be a visiting researcher, etc. Which potentially has upside for the university. And the real commitment signal by the employer is tenure.)
Could you elaborate on why you’d consider new parent benefits to be a middle age and older perk? I would assume most new parents are in their 20s and 30s, making it most beneficial for new grads and folks not yet “grey haired”, so to speak. Anecdotally, I’m just past forty, and new parent benefits are no longer directly relevant to me.
Because delaying maternity is a trend. The median age is 27-30 in the US and you can expect people delaying further than that if they had other priorities.
But I don't put any stock in (non-professor) sabbatical programs, specifically, anymore, at least not the month-ish kind.
It's easy for a company to advertise sabbaticals, whether they mean it or not (e.g., no cost if you layoff or have a hostile work environment in the first 5 years), and there's also odd incentives, as well as perceptions.
For one example, you can imagine a stereotypical coked-up CEO saying, "If someone is still here in 5 years, they must be complacent, not top players. Sabbatical means they document their duties, and we send them home for 4 weeks, to test whether the docs are enough. It's time to check the freshness date, bro."
And on the employee side, you can imagine people approaching 5-6 years holding out a little longer for that bonus/vacation, but seeing no real refresh of incentive after (unlike RSUs). I've seen industry sabbaticals like this used for job-hunting, and the occasion almost looks like a sign that's time.
(With professors, OTOH, it's different: it might be a year, and a chance to refresh your research, break into a new area, write a book, be a visiting researcher, etc. Which potentially has upside for the university. And the real commitment signal by the employer is tenure.)