text:
Can you submit to Arxiv without an institutional affiliation?
I have recently taken an interest in Arxiv because of how easily accessible it is to the public and I've used it myself a few times. There is some work I want to submit to them which was not through an institution, but rather purely on my own.
I still wouldn't submit something unless I had feedback from others, so I am still having the content peer-reviewed by colleagues who would be willing to endorse the the article if they thought it was thorough. But, the problem is Arxiv specifically "requires" that I put an institution I am affiliated with for an article submission even though this work is not affiliated with any.
What should I put if I do not necessarily have an institutional affiliation? Does Arxiv accept anything that isn't through an institution?

Googling the two words "Arxiv" and "endorsement" led me to this web page.

As stated in my question and title, I wasn't asking about endorsement and thus have no reason to look it up. I was looking for whether an "institution" is required, hence my use of the word "institution."

Those requiring endorsement are included among (but not limited to) those not having an institution affiliation, so I thought something there might tell you what to use in place of an institution.

I've had no affiliation while submitting to the arxiv regularly before.  I just use "N/A" in that field of my profile.  Never had a problem.
Others have asked very similar questions before. These all seem to be about people having previously posted with an affiliation to now losing or changing their affiliation, rather than someone who has never posted. The former would be my own situation. Still, the key to entry is getting endorsed.  Once you're in, you are permanently in, short of administrative actions for violations. These could happen if, say, you falsely report your affiliation.  But simply not having an affiliation is not an issue.

Thank you for sharing your experience. I am glad to hear that it is mostly a matter of getting endorsed because I have gotten positive feedback so far. I would like to make your comment an answer, but it isn't exactly coherent to assume one person's experience is the whole answer. Is there anything from Arxiv itself that could answer this publicly? Maybe some kind of page buried in the site or a public statement the library made?

@JohnJoe  Well, definitive proof isn't possible here from what I can tell.  There's zero mention of affiliation in the endorsement page or the FAQ.  If it was a requirement, you'd expect it to be mentioned.

It is mentioned somewhere else: https://arxiv.org/help/submit#availability "Institutional affiliation for the author(s) must be provided." It also requires an institution when you create an account.

@JohnJoe You're misreading that.  The next line, for example, "requires" institutional report numbers be provided.  These don't always exist, even for the affiliated.  These are things you are required to provide if they exist.  On the other hand, the API user manual uses phrases of the form "if the author has an affiliation...".  If it was mandatory, they wouldn't use "if". And have you tried simply not putting in an affiliation when trying to create an account?

It sounds like you have a solid understanding of it then, thank you.


text:
How are eBooks cited for a paper due to be published by a university in the U.S.?
I've literally found 4 different styles so far, and counting.
The American Mathematical Society, or at least a website that claims to have association with it, says to use APA, meanwhile literally every single math paper I've ever seen in my life, including by graduates in the U.S., does not use APA at all, it uses a discrete bibliographic system that labels references with square brackets and always places the publication year later, references the volume and uses square brackets for in-text citations as well, comparable to wikipedia.
Which one is right? The American Mathematical Society or thousands of published mathematicians? I can't understand how the fields centered most around consensus somehow have the least consensus.

Where does the AMS say to use APA style?  Link, please.  Books and journals published by the AMS don't use anything of the kind.  But generally, there is not necessarily any standard; each journal/publisher selects its own preferred style.  There is no "right" approach.

Nowhere did I reference anything published "by" the AMS, I don't know why you suggest that when I stated a university as the publisher in the question title.

"The American Mathematical Society, or at least a website that claims to have association with it, says to use APA".  Could you please give a link to who exactly says this, and where?  My point is that I don't understand why they would say this, when their own journals don't use it.

There are two things I don't understand about your question. The headline mentions eBooks, but the text does not. Are you interested in eBooks at all? Second, I don't know what you mean by "published by" a university. Do you mean just published (in a journal or conference) and authored by those associated with the university or do you mean specifically University publications.

There is no universal standard for "papers published by a university in the US".  Many different styles exist, and different journals may prefer different styles.  This may be the case even for different journals published by the same university press.  You'll have to check each journal for the style they want.  It will often be on their website, under "instructions for authors" or something similar.
It's also possible that the journal doesn't particularly care what style is used in an initial submission, and will only ask for their style to be used after the paper is accepted.  Or they may reformat it for you at that point.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Romance between tenured and pre-tenure faculty? Ramifications for disclosure?
I'm an assistant prof in humanities at a small school, just finishing my second year in a new position, and I've developed romantic feelings for a tenured faculty member (Dr X). We are both unmarried, single, and have similar areas of specialization.
Dr X is, unfortunately, currently serving in an administrative position ($$) for the first time this year, a position appointed by our somewhat mercurial dean. Because of this, Dr. X is my immediate supervisor.
We are friends, and I'm quite certain these feelings are reciprocated, but neither of us has made a move because of the rank situation.
What happens if we move forward with this? I'm on track for tenure - publishing well so far, and I have a contract and both internal and external grants for my book manuscript, which will be completed at the end of this summer.
I understand we would have to disclose, but then will Dr. X lose the administrative position if the dean disapproves? Will I potentially damage my tenure case? I've considered going back on the market, but the market is bad, and it seems a lot to risk on an un-tried relationship.

Surely you should consult the rules of your school, which we do not know.

HR policies do not specifically prohibit but require disclosure. There is no specific language on faculty-faculty relationships.

We can't possibly answer questions about people we don't know will respond, like your dean. In a reasonable environment, it would be simple for someone to recuse themselves from decisions about things like tenure, which are typically decided by a committee anyways rather than one individual. The power relationships between department administration and tenure track faculty are nowhere near as imbalanced as the relationships between faculty and students, for example.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Is it considered spam if I send emails to ask professors to view my manuscript?
I have written a manuscript and want some feedback from experts. So I sent emails to different professors to ask their permission if they want to view my manuscript. I did not attach my manuscript to my email. Would it be considered spam? Would it ruin my reputation?

I have an institutional email address, but none of these people know me. I guess at least my reputation won't be ruined because my email gets ignored.

My own opinion is that this not spam.  However, some may view it as "quasi-spam".  Sometimes you can get a friend to go over things like basic grammar and spelling so that you send a high-quality document out, if that's what you intend to do.

How are you going about it?
If you blast a generic email to 100 groups that are approximately in your subfield, I would not expect a great outcome. Most people will ignore it; a few might be annoyed, especially if a) they perceive the paper as low quality or irrelevant to their work or b) multiple people realize they received the same email. I doubt this will have severe, longterm consequences, but it certainly wouldn't help.
On the other hand, you could certainly send a few targeted emails asking for feedback. This will work best if you identify people who are very likely to be interested in your work and explain why in your initial email. The authors cited in your paper might be a good place to start. I would consider asking a grad student or postdocs as well; I think you're more likely to get a response and it may be more in-depth too! It wouldn't hurt to ask for feedback on specific parts of the paper too. For example, I think an email like this would work reasonably well:

Dear Dr. Eisenhardt,
I am Ignus Ignatius, a 5th year PhD student in Dr. Xavier's group at State University. I enjoyed your 2008 paper about color matching in very young children. We adapted that paradigm to study color preferences in baboons and have collected some data demonstrating that they, like humans, have  color preferences that vary throughout their lifespan.  I'm currently writing this data up for the Example Journal, and  would appreciate any feedback you might have.
Our preprint is here [link to reputable preprint server/website]. I am also presenting this work at next month's Hypothetical Research Conference in Springfield.
I would be particularly interested to know whether you think we have
correctly controlled for interactions between colors' hue and
saturation, as I know that was a focus of your followup work. We would be happy to recognize your feedback in the Acknowledgements of our next version.
Thank you!
-- Ignus Ignatius

If your field uses them, I would consider posting the manuscript to a preprint server, rather than attaching it directly. This sidesteps @NuclearHogie's concern about security, expands the potential pool of readers, and prevents anyone from "scooping" you. One potential downside of this approach is that if you solicit comments from someone, you should acknowledge their efforts somehow (formal acknowledgement, or even coauthorship), and doing so will likely preclude them from serving as a peer reviewer. Good luck!

This might be considered spam, but it might also be considered okay, especially if you have worked with a mentor or advisor to get your paper into excellent shape first. When I was a grad student, my advisor encouraged me to send a copy of my first paper to researchers whom I didn't know. (My advisor did know them.) More recently I have received, and replied to, emails with unsolicited manuscripts from student researchers.
If you go this route, I'd recommend that you (1) make sure your paper is immaculate, and typeset in the same way as other papers in your field, (2) have it read by someone at your home institution first; (3) attach your manuscript with your initial email; (4) be happy if you get one reply, and don't expect a longer back-and-forth.
If you are claiming a solution to a famous open problem, then your claim is very unlikely to be believed and your paper probably won't be read. If your paper is on a niche problem in an active area of research, you are more likely to be taken seriously.
Above all, accept that these professors don't have any obligation to you. Some might write back, but they're not being rude if they don't, so don't send any follow-up or reminder emails.

So I should attach my manuscript to the first email I sent to those professors?

Yes. What you're hoping will happen is that the professor will note your email, cycle back around to it when they have a lull in their other work, take a quick read and write back immediately after that.

@academic I disagree that the manuscript should be attached to the first email - it's cybersecurity 101 to never open attachments from an unknown source. In my view, an email from someone I've never heard of looks even more like spam with an attachment than without one. I would be very surprised if someone's initial response to an unsolicited email was to provide a useful review, without any preliminary follow-up or initiating a dialogue.

And this is a case where a good abstract is crucial, as it should not only communicate what the paper is about, but tell the recipient whether they would want to read it. And the abstract should probably be included in the actual text of the email, rather than an attachment. If it's too long to fit in the email, then it's too long to be an abstract.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
One strong recommendation over one strong and another very short but still strong
I am applying for an undergraduate internship that requires at least one and at most 2 recommendation letters.
I have two recommendation letters:

One with a prof. who knows me personally for a year. He has written a very strong recommendation letter (about 1.5 page). (He has mentioned my performance as top 2% of all the years he has offered a course and have also talked about an internship which I undertook under him)
The second recommendation is from a prof. who doesn’t know me so well outside class. He has mentioned I got a A+ in his course and I’m interested in the specific topic I am applying for the internship but neither of which sound enthusiastic. The letter is about half a page. It doesn’t go deep into my strengths.

Also, both the prof. work in areas related to my internship projects and both of them are from a reputed university.
I have a feeling the second letter can easily overshadow the first one even though it's kind of strong (but not near 25% of my 1st recommendation letter)
In such a situation should I apply with both the recommendations or only the first one?

You read the letters? That implies this isn't the US, what country are you in?

@AzorAhai-him- India. Also, the internship (mitacs) allows to either have confidential letters by the prof or upload directly by the student.

@AzorAhai-him-, I doubt the tag [tag:india] is really needed here.

@Buffy Agree. It might even cause confusion considering the application is not for India.

Well, then where is it for?

@Buffy LoRs vary immensely by culture. Who knows what a short LoR tells an Indian academic (or whatever country)?

@AzorAhai the host country must be Canada, since Mitacs is a Canadian internship program.

Anyone reading the letter would figure out the second prof wasn't as invested into writing it and likely didn't work with you as closely as the first, which is the case. How does that make including it a bad thing?

You are correct that the second letter isn't very strong, but at least it supports the recommendation of the other letter. So, it implies some consensus about your abilities, which is a plus.
Your call, of course, but I see no reason not to send both.


text:
Can I ask to see my referee's reference letter through The Data Protection Act (DPA)?
I am in the position where I applied for a job in my current institution and did not get the position. I think one of my referees may have provided a negative reference. I know that Universities (or companies) are under no obligation, normally, to show a candidate the reference letter they received for them. However, I am already employed by them in a different role and therefore couldn't I ask for a copy of the reference letter under the DPA? i.e. my employer must provide any information they have on the system about me upon request.

I think in some countries, employers are obliged to show you all information they have about you, whether or not you are employed by them.

Whether you can see it or not, what is the point ultimately? What will you do with the information?

@John Custer good question. Not asking the reference for a LoR again, perhaps.

I joined this community just to make this comment. Pro tip: When you ask someone to be a job reference for you, you should ask, "Are you able to provide an excellent recommendation for me if I use you as a reference for XXX?" If they hesitate or say no, find someone else.

While the question is about whether you are legally entitled to see the letter, I will take the liberty  to comment on the question of "should you want to see the letter".
The questions are this: (i) What are the costs associated with requesting the information? (ii) What are the benefits?
As for the costs: Your university (i.e., the people in your department) is likely going to be aggravated by the request. They asked someone for a letter of recommendation, which is generally requested under the assumption that these letters will remain confidential because that is the only way letter writers will be candid. So it is embarrassing for a department to have to let a letter writer know that they will have to make the letter available to the candidate. It is also aggravating to the letter writer themselves, who believed that they can give candid advice. Nobody is going to be happy to break the promise of confidentiality, and people will talk about it because it is so aggravating. It will cost you in terms of your position in the department and your community.
So what are the benefits? Likely none other than you knowing that you shouldn't take that one person as a letter writer again -- but you already suspected that. There is nothing you stand to gain from learning what was in that letter that would help you in the future.
In other words, asking to see that letter is all cost and no benefit. Just don't do it.

Certainly this applies in the U.S., anyway.

Costs: I agree with some of this. But they should not have made any promise of confidentiality if the law says it cannot be confidential. Benefits: OP might learn that the letter was good, or might get some useful criticism from it, or might learn for certain that it was bad and contained unreasonable criticism. So there is plenty that OP might stand to gain. I am not saying I recommend asking to see the letter, just disagreeing with Wolfgang about some points.

@L_G Letters are usually requested with the proviso that they are "considered confidential to the extent the law allows". Writers know that that extent is no unlimited, but there is nevertheless an expectation that usually these letters will remain confidential.

As to the benefits: I don't consider "knowing" a benefit. It's not actionable. Knowing is only useful if there is something you can do about it, and in this case you can't: The position has been given to someone else, and OP already knows what to do in their next application.

Worth emphasizing perhaps that any letter writer would be likely to be irritated by someone forcing a previously confidential letter to be released. So, you may not want to have that reference write a letter again even if it's good - their next one might not be. Kind of hard to even see a benefit there, then.

OP doesn't already know what to do next time, because they don't know whether the letter was good or bad. They suspect it was bad, which is not the same. And as I said, if it contained some valid useful criticism, that would also be a benefit.

@L_G Well they might not know for certain that the current letter is bad, but they can be rather certain that the next one will be.. so they do know what to do next time.

@Voo The next one is only guaranteed to be bad if OP asks about it. If they don't ask, it might be good or bad. So they don't know what to do next time.

Also I don't think the next one is guaranteed to be bad if OP asks about it. If I was the letter writer, I would not be annoyed by the request and I would certainly not maliciously make the next letter bad. In fact I think it would be appalling to deliberately make it bad just because you are annoyed at someone for making this kind of request.

@L_G I think by bad they mean "not candid enough", which would translate to a weaker recommendation, since the writer cannot be sure that their letter will be confidential. There need not be malice or any false statements involved.

If I knew that someone had requested my letter, I would not be willing to write for them again in the future.

Asking for full information disclosure is a "right", indeed, but generally speaking, it is normally employed as a last-ditch effort to move forward with litigation procedures, or something similar, when all other measures have been exhausted, and when bridges are already starting to get burned. If other faculty finds out that a faculty member asked for the revocation of privacy just because they automatically assume someone was out to frame them, this will almost certainly poison the whole environment from the start. If OP still has collegial relations with others, I cannot recommend this.

@L_G Oh yes I was only talking about the situation where the OP actually asked. Actually if that became known I imagine the OP would have a hard time getting any letters from anyone.

"...these letters will remain confidential because that is the only way letter writers will be candid" -> A referee's opinion about someone can neither be considered as an "objective" point of view nor "scientific." It's not like reviewing a scientific paper where a good reviewer should provide sufficient grounds for rejecting a paper. Keeping a referee's letter confidential will not guarantee honest feedback about someone's competency or personality. In contrast, it may expose the candidate to unfair/negative judgments in case of dealing with an unfair/unethical/envious/problematic referee.

There is no presumption of confidentially for letter writers in the UK. Any reference request that has been asked for through official channels will come with a big, bold text warning to that while the candidate will not be automatically shown the letter, they have the right to request it through a subject data access request. This is also why references will often end "If you have an further questions please call me on......" as what is said in a phone call won't be recorded.

@MichelGokanKhan And as a consequence of the well-understood problematic nature of these letters, the letter writers do not make the decision about hiring/tenure/promotion. They only offer insight into a candidate's achievement which the hiring/tenure/promotion committee can dismiss if they so like (and often indeed do).  All of this of course has nothing to do with why giving letter writers the presumption that the letter will remain confidential is a good idea.

If that’s the case, and reference letters don’t affect the decision of hiring committee, then why asking for reference letters in the first place?I think it’s not true and in highly competent position, a problematic reference may ruin someone’s chances to get hired.Imagine you received bad reviews, but your competitor candidate got really good ones, then you will not get hired and will always ask yourself: “what did I do wrong?”, without ever not knowing that your trusted reference were actually a jackass and left you with horrible reviews (because it was confidential).Terrible idea in general

@MichelGokanKhan I didn't say that letters don't affect the decision. I said that the committee takes them under consideration and can, if they so choose, ignore them -- for example, because for whatever reason, one is considered biased. That happens, but not very often. The point I wanted to make is that the letter writers don't make the decision. The committee does, with the input of the letters and taking into account many other factors.

@MichelGokanKhan As for whether these letters are a "terrible idea in general" is something one can debate for a long time. I don't know where you are in your career, but if you've been in the position of evaluating people for a decade or two, I would be interested in hearing what better system you have in mind.

@WolfgangBangerth Unfortunately, based on your criteria of "having one or two decades of experience in evaluating people", I'm not qualified to give you an answer/opinion (maybe in a year or two). What I can discuss objectively, is that references are tightly coupled with the possibility of corruption (not all cases though). As two different examples, I personally know 2 distinct cases where a reference sexually harassed the job seeker to provide a positive recommendation. I also know a case where the professor unethically demanded to be in the second position in a paper to provide recoms.

@WolfgangBangerth (in the former case, the letter was confidential, and in the latter case, the letter was in format of PDF and transparent - both not in my current workplace of course)

Your university should have a procedure regarding the data request. For example, I found these three websites from UK universities regarding this topic:

SOAS
U of Sussex
Bath

These all state that you are allowed to request an overview of which data is stored regarding you, and get access to all that data as well.
Furthermore, this website states that job interview documents also fall under the DPA:

Yes, job applicants have the right to see interview notes if the notes are either transferred to computer or form part of a "relevant filing system". The UK General Data Protection Regulation (retained from EU Regulation 2016/679 EU) (UK GDPR) gives job applicants and other data subjects the right to request copies of personal data that an employer holds about them.

So if these reference letters are stored in a university system, you should be allowed to obtain them. However, it is possible that these documents have been removed after the interview process ended.
Whether or not you are already employed by this institution shouldn't make a difference.

Many thanks!! I thought the same thing about "Whether or not you are already employed by this institution shouldn't make a difference", but the UK gov website says "Once the worker starts with a new employer they can ask to see a copy of a reference. They have no right to ask their previous employer.". https://www.gov.uk/work-reference. So was not sure on this.

Also in the first link in the exemptions it says "You have requested data contained in a confidential reference". So I think it would have to be done under DPA for a current employer only.

"Once the worker starts with a new employer they can ask to see a copy of a reference. They have no right to ask their previous employer." I think this looks wrong as it seems to contradict the general data protection law. You could ask the government department for clarification yourself.

"job applicants have the right to see interview notes if the notes are either transferred to computer or form part of a "relevant filing system". - and certainly outside academia, every HR department in the UK already knows that and knows how to legally work round it, so don't get too optimistic about your "rights".  (For example, the quote says "the notes". It doesn't say "the information content that was contained in the notes.")

@alephzero "personal data" is defined very widely in the GDPR. It certainly includes information content contained in a note. The test is whether or not the information relates to a person who is identified or is identifiable either directly or indirectly. However, there are a number of exceptions and confidential references is one of them as I've noted in my answer. Generally most records will be part of a "relevant filing system" and the exceptions are things like data that are just in someone's head.

When ever we interview we are required to keep the notes for 6 months after the interview, however those notes were taken (I presume as a matter of policy, rather than law). Certainly you the institution may be required to demonstrate in a tribunal that the hiring process wasn't discriminatory against people with a protected characteristic, and having the notes helps with this (as long as you weren't discriminatory). And yes, you can request any personal information held by anyone about you by any company. You can't ask your former employer because they won't keep it.

This question would probably be a better fit  on law.stackexchange.com but as you've asked it here I'll provide the legal answer.
Yes, you can ask (taking the question literally).
That doesn't mean that they have to give it to you though.
Your general rights of access to personal data come from Article 15(1) - (3) of the GDPR.
This is subject to various exceptions. Of relevance here is paragraphs 18 and 24 of schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (the "DPA") (emphasis mine):

24 - The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data
consisting of a reference given (or to be given) in confidence for the
purposes of (a) the education, training or employment (or prospective
education, training or employment) of the data subject [...]
18 - In this Part of this Schedule, “the listed GDPR provisions” means the following provisions of the UK GDPR (the rights and
obligations in which may be restricted by virtue of Article 23(1) of
the UK GDPR) - [...] (c) Article 15(1) to (3) (confirmation of
processing, access to data and safeguards for third country transfers)
[...]

In fact, they might be obligated not to give you a copy of the reference. That's because the reference is also personal data belonging to the person who wrote it. Giving you a copy means "processing" the data (per the definition of processing in Article 4(2) of the GDPR), and a data controller can only process data to the extent that they have a lawful basis for doing so. In this case the only likely lawful basis is that they have the consent of the person who wrote the reference.
Because of this, there is an additional exemption in the DPA which is applicable here. I'm mentioning this only for completeness; the first exemption is sufficient. Paragraph 16 of schedule 2 of the DPA provides (emphasis mine):

1 - Article 15(1) to (3) of the GDPR (confirmation of processing,
access to data and safeguards for third country transfers), and
Article 5 of the GDPR so far as its provisions correspond to the
rights and obligations provided for in Article 15(1) to (3), do not
oblige a controller to disclose information to the data subject to the
extent that doing so would involve disclosing information relating to
another individual who can be identified from the information.
2 - Sub-paragraph (1) does not remove the controller’s obligation
where (a) the other individual has consented to the disclosure of
the information to the data subject, or (b) it is reasonable to
disclose the information to the data subject without the consent of
the other individual.
3 - In determining whether it is reasonable to disclose the
information without consent, the controller must have regard to all
the relevant circumstances, including (a) the type of information
that would be disclosed, (b) any duty of confidentiality owed to the
other individual, (c) any steps taken by the controller with a view
to seeking the consent of the other individual, (d) whether the other
individual is capable of giving consent, and (e) any express refusal
of consent by the other individual.
4 - For the purposes of this paragraph (a) “information relating to
another individual” includes information identifying the other
individual as the source of information; (b) an individual can be
identified from information to be provided to a data subject by a
controller if the individual can be identified from (i) that
information, or (ii) that information and any other information that
the controller reasonably believes the data subject is likely to
possess or obtain.

Are interview notes (notes made by the interviewers during or after the interview) also an exception?

@L_G I don't see anything in schedule 2 about interview notes specifically. There is this though: "23 - The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data that consists of records of the intentions of the controller in relation to any negotiations with the data subject to the extent that the application of those provisions would be likely to prejudice those negotiations.". Given the wording, that might exempt interview notes while the decision to hire (and to agree salary and terms etc.) is still pending, but probably not afterwards.

Thank you. It looks to me like 23 would not apply if you just decided to hire or reject a person, because that is not a negotiation. But it would apply if you were negotiating what salary to pay them, and then you would be allowed to keep notes secret if they were directly related to the salary. Is that what it means?

@L_G That sounds almost right, yes. But they don't have to be directly related to the salary. It's enough that a GDPR request would be "likely to prejudice those negotiations". So for example an interview note which said "This is the only suitable candidate we have interviewed" could be prejudicial as it makes it obvious the candidate has a strong bargaining position.

Frame challenge.  Others have explained why requesting to see the reference letter through the data protection act may be a bad idea.
Other suggestion: arrange a confidential meeting with the person who you suspect may have written a poor reference, and ask them if they think they wrote a strong reference letter.  There are essentially three possible responses you might get: yes, no, or decline to answer.  The answer may or may not be truthful.  Make sure your question does not come across as pressing for information they might not want to share.  You may or may not get wiser, but the costs will be much lower (perhaps close to zero) than the costs for going through the data protection act.


text:
Do I have to submit my high school transcript if "transcripts for all current and previous post-secondary study" are required?
I want to apply for a PhD in Canada. The webpage of the university says that I have to submit "transcripts for all current and previous post-secondary study". Does that include high school transcripts?

Isn't "secondary" equivalent to "high school"?

@RobbieGoodwin  No, secondary also includes grades 6 through 8.  Grades 7 and 8 and sometimes 9 are junior high.

Education in Canada: Post-secondary.  Research is a skill you will need to be successful in a PhD.  Don't miss an opportunity to practice.

Where do you live in Canada.  In Quebec, high schools are obviously "secondary" (the grades are secondaire 1 through secondaire 5).  My sister when to SomethingOrOther Secondary School when she was in high school near Toronto.  Post Secondary always meant after high school everywhere I've lived (Quebec, Nova Scotia, Rhode Island and Texas)

@NicoleHamilton Thanks and "… secondary also includes grades 6 through 8. Grades 7 and 8… are junior high…" reads as clear as mud, here thickened by the unstated implication that "high school" means only "senior…" and not "junior high." Sorry to point this out, and your Answer below is equally dependant on prior knowledge, particularly in the strange claim that "Canada should be similar…" which, why?

@RobbieGoodwin: Without further specification, in North America, "high school" always means high school, and never junior high. High school is the last four (or rarely, three) years before you become an undergrad (assuming you continue in your education). Junior high is a weird in-between level that comes after middle school and before high school, and it has been abolished in some places (with most or all of the grades folded into middle school).

@Kevin Sorry to have dragged us off topic. I that "always" is true, it still says nothing about any comparison with Canada. Luckily, what "high school" specifically means doesn't change its relationship to "secondary."

No. Secondary refers to grades 7 through 12 in the US; Canada should be similar.  It's called secondary because it comes after the primary grades K through 6.  Junior high is usually grades 7 and 8.  High school is typically grades 9 through 12, so post-secondary is after high school, meaning college and graduate school and any vocational or certification training.

Also trade schools, IT certification courses, etc. "Post-secondary  education" covers more things than just university.

Though I doubt that a school would be interested in most kinds of vocational or certification training.  I certainly never had to submit a copy of my pilot's or commercial driver's licenses, for instance.

@jamesqf  Agree. But you might put them on your CV, where you can do whatever you like.  I mention I've been an bicycle rider all my life and have a ham license I haven't used in years on mine.  I don't think it ever got me a job but it might help readers get a better picture of who I am.

@jamesqf Sure, but if you have a certification as an aircraft maintenance engineer or plumber, it might be relevant if you're applying for an aviation- or water infrastructure-related PhD, for instance. If you're a Cisco-Certified Network Associate, that might be relevant to a PhD in communications networks.

I think it's called secondary because prior to the 20th century, high school was intended only for those going to college (hence "prep school") and so attendance was not common, compulsory, nor publicly funded. Only a primary education was mandatory and free.

@user71659 That's very unlikely. Prior to the recent times it was actually much more common to finish your education with a sort of high school. And not just a general one like grammar schools/gymnasiums but also those oriented at acounting, agriculture, forestry and many other areas of economy. Then there was the very important vocational training. A MUCH more important section of education thatn it is now, And then unskilled workers who only had the elementary/primary school. University education was only available to a small part of the population.

Minor quibble: Primary usually goes further than 5th grade in the US.  Secondary is very commonly used to mean only 9th and up; sometimes it includes back as far as seventh, but I don't think I'd ever see 6th grade as "secondary" (and until relatively recently it was in the same school as K-5 in most places in the US).  It's still very common to have K-8 schools (my kids go to one, a public school).

@Joe I struggled with that too but went with Wikipedia's definition but I think you're right.  Your experience matches mine growing up.  So, I'm going to change it.

@VladimirF I don't know about Europe, but in the rural US it was unusual to attend any sort of secondary school until the 20th century. Vocational training was primarily at home.  Both high-school and post-secondary education were rare.

@VladimirF It's not just the US. It was actually determined in the UK in 1899 that public schools over the age of 12 were illegal. Only after it was fixed a few years later did high schools become common.

@BryanKrause Vocational training usually happened in individual shops or workshops, but was nevertheless extremely important. However, I DID NOT claim that there were that many secondary school student. What I DID claim is that most of those that were there did not study university. Notably, for many skilled non-manual professions a high school was good enough back then. Alas, even in the early 2000s many of my schoolmates found a good without one, while with Bologna everyone now pursues some kind of Bc.

@user71659 Austria (half of Austria-Hungary) had obligatory 9 years in 1869 arleady. Obligatory elementary education already came in the 18th century. There were many public secondary schools. The gymnasium I attended started in 1833 as a realgymnasium.

@BryanKrause But I really had in mind those specialized secondary schools that were already preparing for a certain kind of job. Businnes academies (Handelsakademie], forestry schools, agricultural schools, even a specialized wine and fruit school (yes, Mělník 1885). Polytechnical ones. Military ones. There were countless of these and there is no point to list all the professions and subjects of economy that need people with secondary education. Most of the graduates went to their jobs, NOT to a university.

No. Post secondary is undergraduate and beyond

It can be less than undergraduate as well.  Quebec (a province in Canada (where the OP is asking about)) has a system of post-secondary colleges (CEGEPs) that provide either pre-university or technical diplomas.  They are considered post-secondary institutions.  US community colleges are similar (though they describe their diplomas as "Associate Degrees".  I've never heard of either types of colleges referred to as undergraduate education

While your high school studies count as secondary study, if you did AP classes (especially if you used them towards your degree) or vocational classes that gave some kind of trade certificate (especially higher level ones) they are "post-secondary" even though you did them before finishing secondary study, so the university probably wants them officially documented.

authors: Vladimir F Героям слава


text:
Applying to faculty jobs in universities without a research group in your area
I am doing my graduate studies in a field X, which is not dead by any means, but is also definitely not the "field of the moment" when it comes to number of active researchers. A consequence of this is that the number of active researchers in the area is not so big and, consequently, the number of institutions with active researchers in the area is not so big.
While I am not yet looking for a position, in my free time I have seen a considerable number of universities post openings very broadly (for example "an opening for a member to the Geometry area of the Mathematics department", without any further narrowing down of the expected subarea of expertise), often times including the possibility of an expert in field X.
Nowadays, with all of communication technology, the internet, etc., how impactful is it to be the sole member of a department working in your field? Is it feasible for an aspiring professor to go straight to such a position (i.e., without previously building a reputation in a center with a bigger research group in the same area) and perhaps try to slowly "build" a group around themselves?
I am mostly thinking about positions in the (pure) Mathematics department, which does not rely on labs of any kind.
I have seen "https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/58707/applying-for-postdoc-in-a-mathematics-department-where-no-one-has-similar-resear", but it talks specifically about postdocs instead of an actual position.

Are you asking whether it's possible to get a prof job without a postdoc, however? I can't quite tell from the phrasing of your question.

@user176372 Not really; the way my question is phrased implies it is possible, though I am not sure of the rarity of such an occurrence, and that would be a different question...

In pure math it’s not ideal to be the only faculty member in your department who does research in a given area, but also not unheard of. It can be more or less isolating depending on how social and collaborative you are, and depending on how geographically isolated your university is relative to other universities who do have researchers from your area. (E.g. New York City would be a totally different story compared to more rural parts of the country.)
Being the sole researcher in the department in your area could affect your teaching - the department might rely on you to always teach certain subjects since no one else will be able to or willing to teach them. It could mean that you will have to be permanently in charge of a research seminar for your area, and may struggle to find people who want to attend or speak at such a seminar. You may have difficulty recruiting graduate students. And you will simply have less people around to discuss ideas with and draw inspiration from for your research. Technology for remote collaborations is not likely to be a perfect substitute for such things.
Some people can still thrive in such an environment. But I have seen cases where people who were isolated in such a way were demoralized by it and were not happy with their situation.
In the end, the size of the research group is just one of many factors to consider. As Buffy said, don’t rule out any prospective jobs for this reason, but it’s very reasonable to take it into account.

Nice response, +1. I'd add that this is possible, but it substantially profits if one has a strong and very confident personality (scientific and otherwise) to make this a success. Alternatively, OP could use it as springboard to get more central positions elsewhere.

It also depends on how isolated field-wise.  It's one thing to be the only functional analyst in a department where the closest people to you research-wise is a symplectic geometer and an analytic number theorist.  It's much easier to be the only algebraic combinatorialist when there is a graph theorist and a Lie theorist in the department.  Few mathematicians are regularly collaborating with someone else in their department, but most can at least share seminars and advanced courses.

@AlexanderWoo agreed. It’s a continuous spectrum between being completely isolated and part of a thriving, thematically unified research group. Most situations will involve being somewhere inside this spectrum rather than on the extremes.

Restricting your job search in the current (difficult) environment is probably self defeating and counterproductive.
There are a couple of reasons a department would issue a general call, rather than a tailored one. In particular, they might be anxious to broaden the set of interests among the faculty, either for research or teaching considerations. They might want someone to lead an area not currently covered by faculty interest.
While a broad set of collaborators is valuable for a researcher, it normally develops over time. As you note, modern communication can aid a researcher in establishing and maintaining that circle of collaborators.
Finally, it is also possible that joining a department with few others in your specific field might be broadening. One can potentially gain insight from others with different research interests. One can also migrate to a different area if that proves desirable.

Thank you for the reply! Would you say the response changes based on the experience of the professor to-be? Say, between a recent PhD/PostDoc or an established researcher?

@Gauss, established researchers have a lot of advantages in the market except for places specifically after early career folks. But a department might want someone to start a group in a new area; not a novice job usually.


text:
Is it possible to negotiate the PhD topic?
I have expressed my interest in the work of a professor. She does not perfectly match my interests but there is a good amount of overlap. Turns out that she has a PhD position open, with undefined topic, and that she would take me.
Can I, without commitment, suggest to try to find a topic of interest for both, and if the negotiation is not successful, opt out of the collaboration?
I find it quite dangerous to blindly accept working with her: maybe, later on, it turns out that what she specifically wants to work on now is not something I want to dedicate years of life to. On the other hand I appreciate that she will not want to take the trouble in working out a topic together, if I have not accepted being her student yet.

Yes, it is perfectly acceptable to negotiate a topic for a dissertation. You both have something to offer, making negotiation viable. However, it is possible, also, that either of you can't accept the conditions set (or desired) by the other.
It is risky in either direction. Working several years, perhaps, on something of little interest to you isn't very pleasant, but it can lead to an advanced degree that sets you free.
I wouldn't reject any offer out of hand. I wouldn't accept any offer that doesn't meet your standards. But yes, you can negotiate as long as you realize it may lead to nothing.

At least for experimental areas, the 'topic' tends to shift over time as one is confronted by actual results, not what one thought should happen. And I still struggle with students who think only one specific topic is worth pursuing - they have limited experience and don't know all the interesting things out there to do.

Of course, it is always possible to negotiate and give out initiatives. Just go ahead. However, the fact is, the professor plays an important role for the phD process. If you had the possibility to choose other professors whose research direction matches you better, why do you need to negotiate with this professor? If you didn't have another choice or this professor could not accept your inquiry, spending the years to reach your goal is worthy, isn it? After success, you can do the thing you like. Just a PhD can not really say what you will really do in the future.

Of course, you can do it. I did it myself, also researchers I know negociated to whether do some extension, changes or even compeltely change topic. In some fields, things evolve fast (in AI), and sometimes you are accepted 6-12 months prior to start date and at time you start your PhD, there can be more impressive and hot topics to work with. For example, recent LLM hype, it started in end of 2022 and probably a lot PhD students switched to that if they started in September/October 2022.

One factor to consider is your potential mentor's career stage. They are likely to be more flexible if they are either just starting out or (even more so) are very well established in their career. In between, they can't really afford to deviate too much from their chosen research direction.


text:
What are the caveats in pursuing a PhD mainly for fun?
I have heard many times that I should do a PhD only if I love doing research on my topic, and if I cannot imagine my life without research (as research-based jobs mostly require a PhD).
Another reason, is out of fun (let's factor out the joy of research). From this post and related comments, and adding other possible points:

a PhD allows to be surrounded by stimulating, like-minded people, with whom you can bond and create long-lasting relationships
you get to travel a lot and explore parts of the world
you can live in an exciting city
you postpone by few years "growing up", and entering into a repetitive lifestyle
you have a lot of flexibility in your work schedule
all of this while getting paid (let's assume a not indecent salary)
all of this while possibly increasing future career prospects (let's assume I am not working on very exotic stuff)

Now, I like a few topics, but not love them; I find research quite motivating, but not a lot (due to e.g. publication pressure, stress...). That is, I am not someone who is obviously not fit for a PhD, but I don't have that "burning passion" (other personal circumstances: I am a good student with some research work published; I have offers for pursuing a PhD, and have been advised to do so).
Main question: what are the caveats in pursuing a PhD mainly for fun?
Relatedly: is a PhD really that fun, in your experience? What kind of maturity is required from one to have fun and  not be overwhelmed by the project? And so on, feel free to add other perspectives.

PhD salary is NOT decent.

if you're planning on pursuing a PhD "mainly for fun", what will motivate you to keep going when it becomes not fun for some extended period of time?

@Rad80 The degree of indecency does, however, vary a lot by country and between PhDs within a country.

Many universities are not exactly in "exciting cities"

The main caveat is that sometimes doing a PhD is not fun.  It's a hard thing to do and is a lot more than just publishing a few papers.  Especially if your project is experimental, literal blood, sweat and tears will go into it.

The "It's fun" answer is from Sweden.  Note the way graduate school works varies among schools, and especially among countries.  E.g., see https://academia.stackexchange.com/q/176908/19607 Do you have a specific country/region in mind?

Not a full answer, but also note that some of these pros can become cons after 4-6 years or more in a PhD program. As you head into your late 20s/30s and settle down, you may want to travel less, or live somewhere else, or not postpone "growing up" or having a family, or to have made meaningful progress in a decent paying career. A PhD is a commitment that probably isn't worthwhile if not completed, so consider not just if this sounds like fun at 27, but if it will still be at 35, since there's a chance you might still be doing it.

An alternative might be to consider doing a Master’s degree as it is less of a time commitment (usually 2-3 years versus the 4-5 years for a PHD), also some countries/programs vary in how many years it takes to complete a PHD, I’ve heard that at some Australian universities you can get a PHD within 2 years if you are hard working and coming into a well established research program. But this is far from the norm.

@NuclearHoagie Even if not wanting to settle, you get more stuff as you get older, more of which you are unwilling to leave behind which makes relocating a pain.

Caveat: a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations. You seem to mean what are the other benefits of doing a PhD?

@Dugan Isn't finished Master's typically required for an admission to a PhD program?

@kejtos not in the US

@kejtos doing a masters before a PHD isn’t always required. Many Canadian universities and UK universities don’t require it, same for University of California, Berkeley, and Ohio State University in the US

https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive_print.php?comicid=1436   you might want to keep that in mind.

I did and completed my PhD for fun and enjoyed every part of it, from the research to the colleagues and the supervisor. The only downside as many indicated is the pay :).

It is an extremely bad idea to enter a PhD program for ancillary reasons that do not involve a core interest in research work.  Few graduates of these programs consider them to have been "fun" --- they may be interesting and worthwhile, but usually not fun.  Some of these things you list as ancillary benefits are potentially true in some circumstances, but you shouldn't have unrealistic expectations.  In the spirit of pushing back on unrealistic expectations, let me mount some potential counter-arguments to each of these points:

A PhD allows to be surrounded by stimulating, like-minded people, with whom you can bond and create long-lasting relationships*

To the extent that PhD candidates interact with other PhD candidates (or similarly placed people), they are usually working away on their computers with only short breaks for discussion or socialisation.  In some cases there are areas of overlapping interest, but many PhD candidates have specialised interests that are not always shared.  As to the claim that these are "stimulating" people, PhD candidates are arguably the most boring people in the world to talk to or interact with.  Usually their life is focused on a single abstruse problem that is of no interest to others, and many lack social skills.  (Part of this is a matter of relativity; some PhD students may well be stimulating people, but is there reason to believe that they will be uniquely stimulating compared to people in the cohort of non-PhD-candidates in the professional workforce?)

You get to travel a lot and explore parts of the world
You can live in an exciting city

People travel and live in exciting cities all the time without enrolling in PhD programs.  If you do the latter then most of your time will be spent in a lab, or on a computer, doing research work.  Many PhD candidates live lifestyles where they spend almost all their time at their home and in their office at the university, with barely anything else on the itinerary.  Research work in a PhD candidature is a significant time commitment that often bleeds into nights and weekends; it does not leave much time to enjoy the facilities of the city you are in.  It is arguably one of the worst ways to "explore the world".

You postpone by few years "growing up", and entering into a repetitive lifestyle

Research work in a PhD program can be quite interesting and it might involve some interesting variation in learning/material.  However, there is no guarantee that it will be less consistent and repetitive than many other forms of work.  There are usually parts of a PhD candidature that are quite monotonous (e.g., certain parts of laboratory work, coding work, etc.) that can potentially drag on for many months.  Consequently, it is entirely possible that you will have periods of a repetitive lifestyle that would be at least as monotonous as other kinds of jobs.
As to the postponement of "growing up", that is a negative --- becoming an adult and gaining the skills and perquisites of adulthood is one of the best things in life.  Those who try to avoid this typically find that they fall several years behind peers in terms of career progression, family formation, adult skills, general contentment, etc.

You have a lot of flexibility in your work schedule

You usually have a lot of flexibility, but there is still a large amount of total work that needs to be done at some time.  Being a PhD candidate makes it easy to find small amounts of flexible time to do things you want to do, but this time must be paid for with work at other times.  The total volume of work is typically large and most PhD students do at least a full-time job worth of hours on their candidature.  This is one of the reasons that a PhD candidature will often bleed into nights and weekends.

All of this while getting paid (let's assume a not indecent salary)
All of this while possibly increasing future career prospects (let's assume I am not working on very exotic stuff)

The typical PhD candidate will be paid substantially less than a full-time worker at the same skill level who enters the workforce.  While a PhD may indeed increase your future career prospects, so does the work experience that is the opportunity cost of doing the PhD.  Doing a PhD gives you future career prospects in a very specific field of work (research and academia) but it takes away time that could have been committed to other forms of career progression in other areas.  Economic research on the value of academic degrees typically finds that the impact of a PhD on future earnings is negative (i.e., you usually end up making less than equivalently smart/skilled people who went directly into the workforce).

This sounds too pessimistic: I work attached to a particle physics/neutrino group. Being able to travel and to be seconded to a different country is definitely one of our selling points for a PhD, and people do explore/enjoy the places they are being send to. There's a reason e.g. CERN has a ski club. Most of them are also not socially inept, and the ones that are, well, they seem to cope as well.

I have always found PhD candidates to be fascinating people: they are often intelligent, usually passionate and while their passion may be about an esoteric subject, speaking to others about their research is a great way of learning new things. I admit that I would agree with your take if talking specifically about mathematicians, but that could just be my own mathematical ignorance which means I can't understand what they do. My experience with PhD students of other STEM or non-STEM fields though,  is very different.

Yeah, the section about what PhD students are like is radically counter factual, in my experience.

As a PhD student I can confirm the flexibility of work schedule, you are free on how to distribute your 100 hour workload a week. The rare exceptions are deadlines for conferences and submissions, which might be sunday evening, then you meet up with your co-workers in ZOOM to finalize and submit a paper.

What sort of person are you imagining the OP to be, that they "want to do a PhD for fun" but do not have "a core interest in research work"?

Physics PHDs have a reputation for being introverted nerds, but throughout my PhD and postdocs, the OP's "A PhD allows to be surrounded by stimulating, like-minded people, with whom you can bond" is a far more accurate characterisation of the environment than in the answer. That's not just in the  experimental groups I was working directly in, but across the broader departments.  It's not universal (in the UK) but, in physics at least, it's perfectly possible to find a PhD in a department where that culture is the norm

@Marianne013 I think we'd have to narrow down the field to really be able to talk about how pessimistic or optimistic we can be. As a counterexample to skiing in Switzerland, my best friend did travel as part of his Phd., to an island off the coast of another island off the coast of another island off the coast of Greece. When he wasn't working in this remote location he was trying to get some sleep and traveling to and from the work site (the island has a population of zero, not counting goats and their feces). He did have a chance to do a little sight-seeing, but it was mostly work and goats

YYMV clearly, but some labs are definitely non-social. My time as a PhD student was one of the most lonely and isolating experiences I have had. There are reasons PhDs have higher incidents of poor mental health than gen pop. For me, lab mates cliqued together (by language), and for those that came in, they didn’t follow any social considerations including saying hi despite my efforts at inclusion/friendliness. Review online lists on downsides to PhD programs to weigh what works for you.

@Erika I've heard postgrads and postdocs in social sciences say that sort of thing.  Typically they lack the critical mass to  make a decent group culture work easily.  But also, I saw several research groups in various sciences during my time in industry before my PhD. They were very varied, meaning my choice was informed

@terdon in my experience, people might perceive mathematicians as boring out of their own shallowness, so that's not really an argument to consider.

Many points in this answer are very much opposite to what I experienced during my PhD (in pure maths at a German university).

I guess when choosing a PhD there is a risk that you'll end up doing boring repetitive work in a boring office full of boring people chugging away at their computers with no time to enjoy the place you live - but that's pretty much the opposite of my experience. I think the best thing you can take away from this answer is, if you want to have fun doing a PhD, make sure to do your research on the group you're joining. Some groups are lot more fun to work in than others, and making the right choice of department and advisor is, in general, enormously important.

@Mihail yes, that's my point: just because I 0ersonally can't understand what they're passionate about doesn't mean they are actually boring people. It's my ignorance at fault.

In general, all of your comments are true.

"they are usually working away on their computers with only short breaks for discussion or socialisation" bro what? Did no one in your PhD program ever socialize with you?

You can't

factor out the joy of research

The joy of research might be the only reasonable justification to doing a PhD.
The whole drudgery of the PhD is what people put up with for the sake of being able to do research. In other words, the TAing, the scrambling for money, the writing scholarships and grant applications, the classes, the exams, the bullshit (ahh, academic bullshit...), the managing of the advisor and committee, the stress, the isolation, etc. etc., these are all part of the price you pay for the opportunity to do research.
The promise of the PhD is that after you graduate, you will then be paid to do research, either as a professor, in industry, etc. So the process of the PhD is just a means to an end. For the great majority of people who finish their PhDs, graduate school will be the only time in their lives in which they dedicated themselves to do research. Only a tiny minority lands the few jobs that pay them to do that.

"TAing" was the best part of my PhD!

While I agree with most of what you said, but there is joy in doing some of those things :) And from personal experience [Civil Engineering] doing a PhD is far less stressful than a working job.

"The promise of the PhD is that after you graduate, you will then be paid to do research": hopefully many, perhaps most, people after doing a PhD will actually use what they have learnt to do something more productive than just doing more research.

@MichaelKay I don't really follow. PhD is training in research, that's it. Vocational/professional training is another thing, e.g. medical school, law school, business school, etc. One does a PhD to learn the craft of research to then... well do research.

@AlyAbdelaziz I guess that if I were being paid the same salary, being a PhD student could be more fun than actually having  a job. But that would miss accounting the source of most of the misery of being a grad student, which is the lack of money. For me, having money is a lot less stressful than not having money.

@Cheery I learnt research skills, writing skills, time management skills, and software engineering skills, all of which I am still using 50 years later, though I have never been employed to do research.

Sure, you can a PhD for fun. Don't let other people impose their own priorities in life on you.
Of course, doing a PhD largely consists of, you know, doing research. The things that you listed as fun in your question, in contrast, are not research. If there is fun to be had in doing a PhD (and there is), it primarily consists of doing research. The other things are largely tangential and if you do not find doing research "fun", then they will not in and of themselves make pursuing a PhD "fun".
"Burning passion" is not required at all and to be honest sounds like a theatrical cliché from a badly written Statement of Purpose. But what is required is that at a basic level you enjoy the actual process of doing research (which is what you will be doing most of the time), rather than the various tangential things you mention in your question.

The answer is, it really depends.
For me, I could consider my PhD fun. Perhaps not the kind of fun like a party, but the way some people consider extreme endurance sports to be fun. In both cases, it's challenging yourself to seek your limits.
Now, you have to decide yourself what you really want from it, and which salary, amount of pressure etc. you really want to handle.
Your original points were mostly positive, in Ben's response he pointed out none of these are guaranteed. These can depend a lot especially on the culture of the country, the field the institution and the style of the advisor.
In my case (theoretical physics, continental Europe) I had an extremely good experience doing my PhD  (despite the hard work, of course). But that is with a great advisor, decent salary and an institution that offers all kinds of non-technical courses to PhD students to prepare them for the non-academic job market.
So I suggest trying to find out how much the points that you bring up really apply to the situation that you're interested in.

The main caveat is that sometimes doing a PhD is not fun.  It's a hard thing to do and is a lot more than just publishing a few papers.
My project was experimental and literal blood, sweat and tears went into it.  Sometimes it was really tough and I kept going basically because I had worked so hard to get there that giving up was not an option.
I think if you go into it too much as a coffee room dilettante looking for something fun to do whilst working on your Latin and Greek, there is a good chance you will drop out (a few people like this dropped out of the math PhD during my time at my university).
Regarding travel and living in a nice city, my understanding was that if you are very good at coding, you can basically choose which city you want to live in at will.
Also regarding companionship with other PhD students, I have made some friends with other students but bear in mind that quite a large number of them have a tendency to be quite strange, annoying and aggravating (I think this is something to do with nerd subculture).  I don't think it is the best option necessarily if you just want to be around peers that are ''fun''.

In the current situation (gosh, we are all, always, in the current situation), there are certainly not enough academic jobs for all the people who get graduate degrees. Ok.
Still, for people without families to support, grad school can be an amazing time, where one indulges one's curiosity, etc. I'm thinking of math grad school in the US.
But, sure, eventually, we have to think about "making a living". Math grad school is not really aimed at "getting a job", though it's also not anti-aimed at that, either.
So, again, I tell my students to indulge themselves in exploring math for a few years... sure, get a PhD... and then think about job-stuff later. It is corruptive to think about job-stuff when you're supposed to be thinking about serious ideas!!!!  :)

It's crazy thinking to assume the PhD is fun. The PhD is the right choice for certain people. You can't exactly describe this work as fun, but there are other positive descriptors like fulfilling, satisfying, rewarding, or interesting. For the wrong person, the PhD (both the actual work and the ancillary benefits) is abysmal.
A PhD should primarily be stimulating and fulfilling. But it's also not realistic to expect every aspect of your personal life is on hold for this educational opportunity. Any PhD student should have fun experiences during their training, and some of the fun may be unique, like department retreats, being privilege to campus recreation, or enjoying some nightlife at conferences. For those coming from overbearing families or strong personal feelings about life and purpose, the PhD is a sheltered time to dodge pressures for settling, building a family, amassing wealth, or any of the other "adult expectations". Some manage to do both. But to say that the PhD is fun is disingenuous.
Contrast the PhD with, pivoting from academia and securing a reasonable private sector job in your field. The pay tends to be good, the expectations tend to be rigid but less intense, work tends to be a little less stimulating and fulfilling, but you open up a significant amount of time and resources for travel, hobbies, romance, and wellness.
Anecdotally, many of my colleagues who ABD'd out of their PhD program experienced a  significant boost in their personal life, relationships, fitness, general happiness after an initial adjustment shock with not knowing what to do with all the extra time.

Please be aware that there is a significant risk of mental challenges during the PhD process.  Research demonstrates that "exercising your brain" in gradschool comes with the risk of "hurting your brain," and that this risk increases the more you study, increasing from high-school to college, and from college to grad-school.
Let me quote from a reference shared by user1271772
in a comment:

We study the mental health of graduate students at Economics PhD programs in the
U.S. Using clinically validated surveys, we find that 18% of graduate students experience
moderate or severe symptoms of depression and anxiety - more than three times the
population average - and 11% report suicidal ideation in a two-week period. The average
PhD student reports greater feelings of loneliness than does the average retired American.
Only 26% of Economics students report feeling that their work is useful always or most of
the time, compared with 70% of Economics faculty and 63% of the working age population.
Depression and symptoms of anxiety increase with time in the program: 25% of students
in years 5+ of their programs experience moderate or severe symptoms of depression
or anxiety compared with 14.5% of first-year students. Many students with significant
symptoms of mental distress are not in treatment. We provide recommendations for
students and faculty on ways to improve student work conditions, productivity, and mental
health. (emphasis added)

Couldn't have said it better myself! But here are some anecdotes I've heard in my own experience:
I've heard a story of a PhD recipient crying in the bathroom on the day they received their PhD because of the personal cost of reaching that point.  The discoverer of caffeine dropped out of academics because of a difficult relationship with his dean.  At my graduate school, one professor told us he was the only professor in the department who was still married to the same person as when he started, among those who started with or before him.  Life comes with many source of pain, and research can certainly be one of them.
Yes, academics is fun whether you pursue teaching or research.  But it is fun in the sense of finding personal fulfillment, finding satisfaction in your labor (Eccl. 3:11-14), and pursuing truth with rigor.
As many others have answered, these are the reasons to pursue a PhD degree. I enjoy travel, but I do not travel any more. I enjoy academic discussions, but I don't spend a lot of time in them. Even writing this post is pushing my time for such engagement. Yet I'm still glad I pursued a PhD for the fun of academics itself, regardless of the amenities.
P.S. Didn't realize I'm a new contributor to this "channel" until after posting.  Guess I've been lurking for a long time.  But if there was any one post that I would like to have as my first, it is this one.

+1 and welcome to Academia.SE! For your first paragraph, here's some sources: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-emotional-toll-of-graduate-school/, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01751-z, https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/anxiety-depression-mental-health-graduate-school/576769/, https://www.benkuhn.net/grad/, https://campusmentalhealth.ca/news/graduate-school-can-have-terrible-effects-on-peoples-mental-health/. @Lilla please take note of these articles!

@user1271772 Thanks! I've incorporated a quote from one of your reference into my answer.

Direct answer to the question ...
The major caveats are:

Failing out of the PhD. This is obviously bad, you invest the time and get "nothing" out of it (inverted commas since you probably get something; it's just less than what it should have been).
Related to the above: maybe you don't fail out, but you lose interest and drop out. Different cause, same result.
Opportunity cost. The time you spend doing a PhD is time you didn't spend doing something else. That "something else" could be much more important to you. The biggest example would be money. Academia does not pay well in general, and being a PhD student pays even worse. You could conceivably earn the minimum wage for the duration of the PhD. Other possibilities: you don't get direct work-related experience from a PhD, you might have a significant other to accommodate, you might have to put off having children.

If you're unsure about doing a PhD, consider working first. You can still do a PhD after.

There's nothing wrong with doing a PhD for fun. That's a big part of why I did a PhD (the other main factor being that it's something I'm good at). And, one or two stressful months aside, I did have a lot of fun as a PhD student, and living in a great place, with friends from my program who I really liked, and getting to travel to interesting places were certainly all big parts of that fun. Now I did manage to turn research into a career, but I've had at least one PhD student who I think did a PhD mostly for fun, and who had fun doing it, and didn't go on to a research career. And I don't think he regrets it.
Where I think you're in danger of going wrong is that a PhD is most likely not going to be fun for you if you don't have fun doing research! I don't think you need a burning passion for a subject, but you do need to like the day-to-day job, especially later in the program. If you find research stressful the odds are low that you're going to actually be having fun throughout your PhD program.
Doing a PhD for fun is fine as long as you're having fun, but it's not going to work if you're not actually having fun.

I did that! Oh the fond memories...
I knew by the start of my PhD that I would not be staying in Academia for many reasons (salary in the industry was at that time almost an order of magnitude better, the medieval hierarchy in Academia was pitiful, and more).
But I loved research and teaching (or man, I love(d) teaching) and on top of that I was free from financial worries (I was working at that time, first as a consultant and then full-time by the very end of the PhD). It allowed for a truly rewarding experience.
First, I was not fighting for money. I had grants for travel and similar stuff, but the pay was only a "nice to have" (very nice to have though).
Then I was not fighting for position. I knew I would not go for Dean so nobody could force me to create political unions to push my agenda. I had fantastic friends (who stayed in Academia, now full tenured profs, and one of them world-famous) so I had all the fun of being with people who think alike.
Since I knew my career was not at stake, I was way more relaxed doing my research. The research was actually really good (it turned out way better than I thought initially) and I could be focused on it completely because this was the only thing that mattered when at the uni. And teaching!
The research fun, and non-research fun I had during these years will always be a wonderful memory, even 25 years later. I would not change a bit if I was to do it again.

I will go slightly against the usual wisdom. I think (well, I am pretty sure), you absolutely can do PhD for many reasons, even those that are often mentioned as a strict no-no, such as ego boosting, and it might be worth the time and effort.
Anyway, to the main questions... Since you did not mention what country/universities/field you talk about, I will give my perspective as someone pursuing a PhD in Econometrics and operation research in Prague while working full time, so it might not apply to your situation at all.
Is PhD fun? I would say so. However, I do not work in a lab, I have not had a single issue with anyone nor have I seen any of the usual "toxic behavior" a lot of people mentions when talking about the pitfalls of academia. I do not have to work in a team/research group. I chose my topic. My supervisor does not intervene and I do not have to help him with his bullshit. On the other hand, I have to teach (I teach 1 and a half of a subject) and I have to publish enough.
What kind of maturity is required from one to have fun and not be overwhelmed by the project? I would say that being a reasonable and responsible adult should be enough.
Regarding the points for why to do PhD:

a PhD allows to be surrounded by stimulating, like-minded people, with whom you can bond and create long-lasting relationships

Definitely. Though you can avoid a lot of it if you wish to.

you get to travel a lot and explore parts of the world

Well, ses, but you would probably be better off taking an industry job and pay for the vacation.

you can live in an exciting city

Yes, but you can do that anyway.

you postpone by few years "growing up", and entering into a repetitive lifestyle

You can avoid repetitive lifestyle regardless of whether you pursue a PhD or not. Also, PhDs are already adults. I do not know what "growing up" is supposed to mean here.

you have a lot of flexibility in your work schedule

Definitely, though it depends on the field. If you work with expensive equipment or in a lab etc. the flexibility might not be that high.

all of this while getting paid (let's assume a not indecent salary)

Well, that depends. I get about 70% of minimum salary, so that deos not apply to me (and really most students here). Also, I would assume PhDs could get higher salary elsewhere probably anywhere in the world.

all of this while possibly increasing future career prospects (let's assume I am not working on very exotic stuff)

That is true.
One more thing to mention is that, as you could probably guess, I will (almost certainly) not get published in the Natures and the Econometricas of the world, so I sort of avoid the stresses coming from the publish or perish environment.

If you are working with an expensive toy in the lab, everyone wants to use it so you sort of having to jump in and use it when you have the opportunity.

(At the time of this writing, we have 14 pretty good answers.  Clearly, we need a 15th, so here goes.)
I think the real caveat, here, is a minor frame challenge:  Any short pithy aphorism like that is shorthand.  So much so that, on its own, it might be doing more harm than good.
I myself refuse to give someone asking me about the PhD experience an aphorism like that without explaining it.  (I mean that literally.  I have people come into my office (industry job) looking for insight, and I make them schedule a minimum half hour time so we can talk about it in detail.)
But my sense of what people mean when they say that is not literal, it expands to something like, "Except for a few statistical outliers, this will probably be both the hardest thing you've ever done in your life, the longest effort you've ever sustained, it will at many times be very stressful, and there is no guarantee of success.  Also, statistically, you will lose money on this in the long run.  Given all that, it simply makes no sense for you to do this unless there is something about your field or about the process of research that internally compensates you for all this:  We refer to this as fun or passion or satisfaction."
I'm not sure whether coming up with a list of "fun" aspects or side-effects of the PhD process is really helpful in the sense you want it to be.  The whole gestalt of the experience, positives and negatives combined, is intensely personal and interior.  A list isn't going to convey the experience before you have it, or convince you one way or the other while you're having it.
Likewise, whether it's "worth it" or not.

I nearly did a PhD and my wife did one.
When people talk about needing a burning passion, they say that because successfully completing a PhD is usually an ordeal.
It sounds like you'd like to start a PhD. A significant number of people (more than is normally acknowledged) start but never complete it. Because a PhD is probably going to be the largest single project you will have started in your life up to this point.
Passion helps, because having passion lets you push through long hours of "extra" work that you need to do. You might be expected to do some work for the university/laboratory that is not your PhD. You might need to mark essays, take tutorials, etc. And these things are fun at first, but they are a drag longer term. Like say over the 3 - 5 years your PhD will take.
Without good project management, good discipline, "passion", etc in the mix, you will likely fail to complete the PhD or you will take 5 years and the university will start hassling you and the stipend will stop. The other thing you'll need is to be good/patient/put up with writing. You need to write a lot, in a scientific style (assuming you are doing a scientific PhD which is what I have experience with).
I did a bachelor degree with an honours year. Which in my field at the time, was like doing a 1 year PhD, with everything a lot smaller. You had to do a lit review, carry out research, etc and write it all up. I was a capable student who was not super well motivated. During that first year, I learned a lot of skills that I have continued to use. Critical thinking in statistics, algorithmic thinking, understanding constraints. These skills were related to the field and the project itself.
However writing up the honours thesis was a pain. I learned that I'm not good at proper scientific writing. I was okay at it in undergrad where you basically regurgitate what you are shown to do. But especially compared to my (now) wife, I wasn't dedicated, I wasn't a good scientific communicator, I wasn't a good editor, and I know know that I wasn't writing with a good hierarchy of information. The day my thesis was due, I was still finishing it (still writing some parts), and I had stress cramps in my calves. I knew at that point that while I'd like to do a PhD, I wouldn't be good at doing one. I felt like a massive failure, and I started working to help support my wife.
I now know that it would have been a terrible choice to start a PhD. I would probably not have finished it. I would have hated it. I didn't have the maturity and passion to do it justice, and honestly being focused on a single burning question for 5 years is not something I would have enjoyed at all. By the end I would have hated it.
But doing the honours year was fantastic. Both personally, and because it allowed me to realise that I wasn't cut out for scientific research. I moved into an adjacent field and have done pretty well.
So my suggestion would be to look at doing a Masters. Often you can do a masters by research (once again, assuming it's in science, not sure if this exists in other fields) and then transition into a PhD if it's going well. Be honest with yourself.
If you want to go to conferences, there's lots of jobs where you can go to conferences. If you want to hang out with smart people, there's lots of other jobs where you can do that. Doing a PhD correlates with intelligence. But generally people who do PhDs are scientists who want to work in the field, people who want to do academics, or even older people who always wanted to do one. The bulk are going to be the first two.
Lastly, be careful what you wish for. Things that seem ideal in a job (like travelling interstate/internationally for work) when you are 20 are a massive drag when you are 30.

I know of exactly one person who would describe their Ph.D. as "fun", and they were in a very unusual situation: they'd already had a long unrelated career and had accumulated enough savings to be considered reasonably independently wealthy. (And they had adult children who were already out of the house.) So they were able to fully pay their own way out of pocket and faced zero deadline to graduate (except maybe some internal university rules). They researched part-time over eight years - totally for fun - and never had to teach, or apply for a single grant, or deal with any visa issues, biological clocks, or two-body problems, or face any pressure to publish or to find a next job.
If you happen to be in that extraordinarily lucky position, then doing a Ph.D. for fun is indeed a pretty great gig. If you're one of the 99.99% of Ph.D. students who aren't in that position, that it is usually not very fun.

There are  PhD positions with

a decent salary compared to industry
where you do a lot of industry related work and not only research/teaching
where most PhD students do not aim to stay in academia

This is especially true in engineering.
These may be more fitting for people not "burning for research".

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.


text:
No answer after one week follow up. Contact administration office appropriate?
I have contacted a professor (in Germany) to ask if he would take me as a PhD student.
I have written to him a follow up email 7 days after the first contact, and now it's two weeks with no answer.
Is it appropriate or advised to make a phone call to the administrative office of the chair, and understand whether the professor is out of office due to e.g. holiday?
This way I would know if and when to try the third email.

Does this answer your question? Follow up email in 2 weeks - PhD application - a good idea?

Also relevant https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/84602/phd-application-follow-up-contact-the-lecturer-or-the-school?rq=1

And https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/121805/when-to-follow-up-with-a-potential-supervisor-after-sending-referral-contact-det?rq=1

No. In the 3 situations the OPs had received answers, and there is no mention to contacting administrative office. @user438383

@hahn76 all the answers are still relevant.

@Nobody they are the correct addresses, yes

@Sursulasupportsthestrike No, I have followed the main steps already. I just want to know if the professor is on holiday to know when and if to contact him again. Since I am a bit short on time.

@hahn76 how should anyone on the internet know if a specific professor is on holiday? Heck, probably not even all of their colleagues know if they are on vacation. Take the advice from the linked questions and make a decision based on that.

@Sursulasupportsthestrike Someone on the internet could tell me if it is appropriate to make that phone call I was talking about in the question.

This is the advice I was looking for. Noone (apart from the secretary/adminstrative office will know this) you are right

Don't nag. You can follow up in 4 weeks or so, but I wouldn't do it in August. If you get no response, they are not interested. You should try other places, too. More options take the pressure off you.

I live in Germany half the year, and I can attest that these guys take their holiday time seriously. It's common for people to take a full month, even two months of vacation, and to them no email during holidays means no email. And we are straight in the middle of summer holiday season. So by all means contact the secretary, but be aware that he/she might be taking their own holiday.

In general, I would not expect answers in July and August and only follow up after. Part of the summer people can be expected to be out on holidays, for the other half they are away at conferences, wrapping up the prior academic year or preparing for the next, or finally focusing on some core tasks like writing grants and papers after the teaching is done.
In either case, cold e-mails are likely to be less of a priority to respond with during that time.

Yes, it is fine to contact the office, such as the department secretary. You may or may not get the information you need, of course.
However, if you were responding to a call and it had a date for submission, then you might not get any communication from the professor until that date passes. They have other things to do, including, as you note, vacations. A few weeks at this season is probably quite short.
I wouldn't, however, contact the professor again for a while, unless you have some actual need to know, such as another pending deadline.


text:
How to keep a door open without too much commitment in PhD applications
I am looking for a PhD/job position. I sent an email to a  group doing things potentially aligned with my interests. I had an interview with them and I am not enthusiastic about the project. I could see myself joining the group but the topic is quite far from my perfect topic.
They encouraged me to apply early to the doctoral school (they did not say they'd take me if I was admitted, but I think I do have some chances).
Fast forward one month and I haven't applied to the doctoral school, the deadline is still very far away, and I still want to find better options. They just asked me if I had heard back already from the doctoral school.
What could I tell them? My intention is not closing doors, but not stepping into this one too much either.
I could tell them that I still haven't managed to gather my references, which is true (I am in Europe, you don't always need reference letters for getting into a PhD programme), but not completely "honest", since there is a chance I will never apply to the school to take a job offer. Is it a good idea to just say I am still looking around and I will take time until the deadline, in case? They might start preferring other candidates if I ever was a top choice.
Disclaimer: this question is similar to this one, but substantially differs in the nature of the involved "offers".

Do not enroll in a PhD program or join a group unless you are absolutely sure you want to work there for several years.
If you want to take a job that you do not love, at least pick one that pays better than PhD student.
To directly answer your question:  Just tell them you did not submit your application yet.

Thank you for the answers, also for the additional advice.
Just to clarify the last part, would you agree with @justauser in conveying what you said in the form "I haven't sent the application yet, I am still gathering the references"? Or would you only keep the I haven't sent the application yet"?
I think it makes a difference in the perceived message.

Keep it simple.

I am also in the process of applying to graduate school. I do not think being completely honest by telling them you are unconvinced with the group and are looking around for better options is a good idea at this stage. You could do the following to maximize your chances:
Tell them that you are still consolidating your application and gathering your references (this is technically true). In the meantime, make sure you email other groups you find interesting and decide if they better fit your area.
If you do find a better fit within the application deadline, you can email this group and politely let them know that you will not be applying to their group but thank them for their interest. By letting them know at this stage, you may have also given them with extra time to decide among alternative candidates.
If it is close to the deadline and you still haven't been able to find a better group, it is up to you to decide whether you want to apply to this group or not. You don't sound very enthusiastic about the research area, and that does not bode well, but if you still want to apply to see what happens, I suppose you could. If you get the position but decide to not opt for it, the group will most likely understand, since these sorts of decisions are based on a lot of personal factors, and they will most likely have other candidates lined up, anticipating such a situation.