To add a data point, my advisor told me to do the same. In fact, I actually spoke to one of his then-RAs who was leaving to go to the other side of the world (by sheer coincidence).
That discussion confirmed I was making the right decision, and I was able to gauge as well from the "warnings" I received that I was going down the right route. So I would definitely echo the above, and advise you speak to at least one of their previous students. If none are still around, that might be a red flag (or they might all be getting snapped up right away into jobs, but they will make the time to discuss with you, if they felt their advisor helped them!)
I would personally find it surprising if someone who wanted me to advise them didn't seek views from those I had advised previously.
I know of two examples of professors who wrote a detailed syllabus like yours, albeit in different styles. One was my brother's advisor, and the other is my brother. ;-) Perhaps not coincidentally, these professors were also known for having a straightforward approach, and for their students getting through the process reasonably unscathed. That's not to say it was easy for students, or that conflicts didn't ever occur. But there was little or no confusion about the expectations.
You are definitely not every PhD advisor. This is a public service and should be required reading just about every institution that issues advanced degrees.
I would say that as a student, you would be asking a potential advisor what mix of projects would be an example course of the research. What is "their approach" to the sequence of your grad projects over several years? Examples? What combination of risk/certainty does it have? I think you can tell pretty quickly whether the advisor has this concept even in mind.
Former students should have this idea in their mind too, after finishing the program. If they don't, they haven't learned one of the important things about a PhD...
And if you feel that it's too rude to ask, or the professor can't handle such a question (or you're hesitant to ask) -- either you probably want to find someone who is comfortable with such questions, or better find out why you are uncomfortable. Better to be awkward up front and get the answers you want, than be polite and suffer for 5 years to discover the wrong answer.
I mean, that's a whole nother topic -- this is a huge investment of years of your life. You should ask difficult questions before you make the leap. And the professor should owe you such answers before committing to taking you on.
In fact, it's not that different from an awkward pre-nup contract conversation. Only this time you don't have to be swayed by emotion.
Admittedly approaching this with a non-US perspective, but it seems strange to me that PhD students approach their advisors to see what the project/approach is.
Is it normal (in the US?) for a PhD to be as "guided" or prescribed by the advisor as you suggest above? Perhaps my experience differed, but I went for an advisor who takes an old-fashioned "independent research" focus. That's not to say they were unavailable or disinterested; rather they were there to offer input and guidance when needed, but not to steer or even direct. It was up to me to plan what I wanted to do, when to do it how to go about it, what to write up and publish, which conferences to bother with etc. Perhaps this is unusual, but I felt it was a key part of the experience to deliver your own major research programme.
I'd definitely agree that if you can't ask the questions you outlined above, or if they can't answer it, that is a big red flag. A PhD is about learning to ask questions fundamentally, and then set about answering them, so may as well get started by asking your advisor. I'd also try to get an understanding of the culture of the group and practices, since some research groups have more of a "lab" culture where everyone works as part of a bigger project, while I was involved in the opposite - everyone had their own "thing", but would work together when it was helpful.
Well, my story was 15 years ago and in an area where students were mostly expected to bring their own research questions to the program. I had trouble getting the time of day from potential advisors, to say nothing of interviewing them about potential projects and their advising methodology!
This is brilliant in a way that relates to commercial research in natural science too, generalizing some of the terms and focusing more toward business than academic life:
1. What difference will this work make if you succeed?
a. Whose lives will be made better by this research?
-the client
b. How will this improve upon what’s currently being done?
-the client will be more satisfied
c. Why is this one of the most important questions in the field?
-because a valuable client asked
that was easy
d. Will it create a big policy change at some level (company, government)?
-if so it will be for the positive with consensus, otherwise no costly changes
e. Will it inspire a new class of systems?
-would be good if it was worth building beyond clients' immediate needs
2. Who will care about it when you’re done?
-two clients would be better than one
a. Will government agencies care?
-only in a beneficial way, when the FBI comes to your office you want to be their consultant not their suspect
b. Will platforms and industry care?
-if you do projects which make them money, more fondness can be expected than if you cost them money
c. Will non-commercial researchers care enough to recognize or benefit from it?
d. Will non-commercial researchers care enough to teach it to their staff/students?
e. Will anyone care about it 10, 20, 50 years in the future?
3. How will this change what other people (defined broadly) are doing?
a. Will other researchers change what they’re working on after seeing your work?
b. Will practitioners do something different?
c. Will users adopt what you’ve made, found, created?
d. Will authorities use what you’ve found to draft new requrements/specifications?
-unless no negative impact can be imagined, such a sensitive project might best be shelved until a time of more positive outlook
Professor Gilbert has an _internal deadline_ 7 days more strict than the real publication cutoff, actually allowing for reduced stress and making higher Quality output possible in ways others may never achieve:
>If the paper isn’t ready, we won’t submit it to that conference or journal deadline; we’ll submit it somewhere later.
Naturally deadlines for being AT the conferences are not missed. I bet they can build anticipation about future presentations most accurately when this happens.
I tell all my prospective students to talk to my former students.