Should age be a factor in making musicals?

I've been thinking a little bit about age recently, partly because my own musical The Curious Case of Benjamin Button looks quite closely at the subject. But I'm thinking about it now in relation to opportunity, praise and critique that seems to use the idea of age in an interesting way...

Why for example are we more impressed with someone who is able to do something excellent when they are in their teens than someone who has achieved something of equal or better quality who is older? Surely it should be the quality of the creation that should be assessed, rather than the age of its creator. There is an argument I suppose that goes along the lines of...
​
"Well, if they can do that when they are so young then think of their potential to create even greater things as they gain experience, skill and wisdom."

But potential is not owned by the young. It is owned by the young at heart. It is owned by the curious and the fascinated. It is owned by those who are driven to discover and uncover. As much as the media would like us not to believe it, potential and skill is open to anyone of any age.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because I have recently seen several reviews and articles about a variety of shows that either directly reference the creators exact age or mentions that they are in their twenties. Interestingly, I cannot find a single review of work of writers in their 30's or above that mentions the age of the creators, until we get to the age of about 70+ where it suddenly becomes an item of interest again. 

So what is this obsession with age in musical making? 

I did not start writing musicals seriously until I was 30, so have never been eligible for any 'emerging' opportunities despite the fact that 14 years on I am pretty sure I still haven't quite 'emerged.' And you know what? When I was 25 I didn't need the financial support that some of these emerging awards provide in order to pursue my passion. Because I had limited responsibility, was in a small share house (and admittedly living in 2005 when things were a hell of a lot cheaper!) I didn't need financial recompense to pursue my passion and hone my skills because I had the time to do it on my own dime. 

I know that the idea of age and its marketing power in selling a new show by the latest 'Wunderkind' remains important for selling tickets. But is it entirely helpful in sustaining a meaningful career for those involved? If the quality of work is assessed partly by the fact of age, then what happens when those same writers reach 30+? Are they suddenly going to be held to a higher standard that they have hitherto not been prepared for? And what good is that going to do them or the industry?

I would rather we go down the Hammerstein route who said to the young Stephen Sondheim after showing him his first musical, "I'm going to treat you like a professional. And as a professional this is the worst thing I've ever read. And if you like, I'll tell you why."

So what I'm saying is, if you want to mention age then please go ahead, it's your opinion. But I think it's worth noting that physical age has almost nothing to do with overall potential and that there maybe considerable downsides to the effect this has on the writers themselves.