text:
Advice in Navigating Concerns in Pursuing an Interdisciplinary PhD in Computer Science and Neuroscience
I graduated both my undergraduate and master's degree in Computer Science and currently working in academia. I am applying for a PhD call (Finland) focusing on AI and data science. I didn't realize until the last minute that the faculty will be the Faculty of Medicine and the degree will be PhD in Neuroscience. I have several concerns regarding this :

In my country, you can't make a career in academia if your PhD field is strongly deviated (not linear) from your master's degree. It's within the tenure-track rule & regulations by the Ministry of Higher Education. So, uni recruitment also requires master's and PhD degree in a linear field. I don't mind looking for opportunities abroad, however if nothing works out, I want to at least still be able to go back home and find a job in academia, since PhD graduates for academia are in demand here. So, choosing a different PhD field will be basically eliminating one major job opportunity for me.
We collaborated in writing the proposal so I know the research plan very well. I've discussed it many times with my prospective supervisor and it's evident that my role will be coding. This makes a degree in Neuroscience feels like a mismatch because it wouldn't hold any relevance to my work. I'm not interested in graduating with a Neuroscience degree when my entire PhD work revolves around coding. I am afraid that this mismatch will undervalue my real expertise in the academic job market and causing misunderstanding .
Neuroscience in academia is not in demand in my country and most neighboring countries around mine. And even if I want to look for opportunities abroad, I suspect not having bachelor's and master's degree in it will make it tricky.
The call is a short 3 year call with two papers output, I suspect that I won't have time for job hunting before graduation and the supervisor isn't a faculty member at the university (I didn't know initially, I found his name on the faculty website and reached out). He is a medical doctor with teaching permit in the university. So, it's not like I could potentially do some postdocs in his lab after graduation. He doesn't lead / associated with any lab, and if this call is granted I will be his only student. This is really concerning to me, I see my future as vague here.

It's a promising PhD opportunity and I love the topic ! But my concerns are weighing on me. "Ask yourself, what do you want to do after a PhD ?" : I want to stay in academia. Any fellow with an interdisciplinary degree willing to share some insights on this ? Maybe some perspectives that I miss ? How has an interdisciplinary degree worked out for you ?
tl;dr. I am contemplating to go through a 3 years of PhD, for a Neuroscience degree without gaining relevant neuroscience knowledge since my role will be coding-related and the fact that I won't get a job in academia back home because both my master's & bachelor's are in Computer Science.
update :
I forgot to mention that I mentioned my concerns to my supervisor, but he doesn't see it as an issue, not realizing it's a problem in my country, not Finland. He suggested discussing it later. Since he's not a faculty, I'm worried he might overlook this issue and be unable to offer reliable academic support. Honestly, I don't mind with the interdisciplinary education, I am looking forward to learn new things ! But the degree won't work out in my country.

what is your country?

I don't know which home country you're referencing, but I have an interdisciplinary PhD and a situation similar to yours.
Brief Summary of My Background
My undergraduate degree is in computer science, and my PhD is in Genetics and Computational Biology.
I had almost no undergraduate biology experience, and at first, no interest in acquiring any. I fell into my PhD program almost accidentally while working on a coding-related contract for my future advisor.
During that contract, I realized I enjoyed the application of computer science to biological problems, and he encouraged me to apply for the program, so I did.
Since I lacked foundational knowledge of most of undergraduate biology, after starting the PhD program, my advisor had me take and teach* courses in undergraduate biology and genetics in addition to my regular research work.
During my PhD program, I published in the interdisciplinary field of computational biology.
After completing my PhD, I landed a fantastic 3-year academic research position in the UK, and it was the fact that I had an interdisciplinary PhD combining computational work and genetics research that made that possible.
Even though I loved that experience and learned a lot, it also helped me to see that I didn't love research-focused positions, and what I really enjoyed was teaching.
So after that appointment ended, I taught computer science and data science courses at a couple of four-year universities in the US.
Takeaways
So, relating this back to your story:

I would be skeptical of the assumption that your undergraduate and graduate work have to be in the same field, or that a strong computational background would be considered too divergent from neuroscience in a tenure conversation.
Though admittedly, this could be country specific, interdisciplinary research (especially when computation and life sciences are involved) is increasingly the norm.
If you're concerned about it though, reach out to a department chair of a university you're considering working for one day to find the exact ruling for your specific situation.

I wouldn't write off the doors that a PhD in neuroscience might open for you, even if most of your work is computational in nature.

Having a strong computational background combined with a graduate-level degree in a life science is a huge differentiator in both fields.

If you move forward, I would speak with your prospective PhD supervisor about ways to fill in the gaps in your neuroscience knowledge, possibly by taking (or teaching!) undergraduate courses during your PhD program.

"Staying in academia" is a broad target. I stayed in academia for a while, doing interdisciplinary research for a research institute and later less interdisciplinary teaching at a university. These were very different "academic" experiences, with different requirements.

I learned a great deal more from teaching undergraduate courses in biology than I did from taking them.

Thanks for sharing your detailed experience. Can I ask if your PhD and later academic position were in the same country ? Because it just make sense then. You mentioned the UK and the US, so maybe it is doable in some countries. It's true that the rules vary by country, and in my country it just happened that the Minister required us to have a linear field for a tenure-track. I'm just worried and seeking reassurance that if things don't work out, I can still return home and get a job academia. I had been in the industry quite a few times and always ended up resigned, so I know it's not for me.

I find myself in a similar situation as you were. I have no interest in neuroscience (at the moment) and the project is an ongoing project, so it's hard to "feel" invested in it, since it's not my own project nor my study field. I don't even know what the future prospects of this project might be. However, who knows what it could develop into over time. About staying in academia, I don't mind teaching (because it's also required here in academia), but my passion lies more in research. I've been teaching for the past 4-5 years, and I'm nearly hopeless with today's generation.

I forgot to mention that I mentioned my concerns to my supervisor, but he doesn't see it as an issue, not realizing it's a problem in my country, not Finland. He suggested discussing it later. Since he's not a faculty, I'm worried he might overlook this issue and be unable to offer reliable academic support. I guess I'll go with your advice to seek information from the department, just to see if there's anything I can do. I don't mind the interdisciplinary education, I am looking forward to it. But it won't work out even in my own country.


text:
How to negotiate on heavy social tasks and administratives that weren't advertised when you signed a lecturer contract?
I signed a deal as an undergraduate specialized lecturer with job description that prioritized research (followed by teaching). The (Human Capital) HC outlined these job descriptions when she offered me the deal, I love research and because it was the main focus of this position, I happily accepted the offer. However, soon after I joined I was assigned to another pogram in the same faculty. So on the top of research, teaching and lecturer administrative tasks, I am also "asked to help" with various social activities and all operations related to it, including gatherings (not academic related), parents' meetings, program marketing / promotion, etc. Most of these social tasks are done on a weekly basis, and it's draining me out (I'm not a social person).
Those weren't advertised to me during the deal offering. They're now plotting me for a post with more administrative responsibilities as priority, meanwhile I have signed a 2-year contract with a penalty, so resign is not an option. I already negotiated with the Dean and the Head Program however they have none of it. They're convinced that it's common sense to simply follow along what the Faculty requires because HC has no idea what the actual job descriptions are and has only supplied what is written on paper when offering the deal. They went all the way mentioning that :

"we saw something (values) in you and we were prepared to trust you with greater responsibilities".

I'm devastated. I didn't join academia as a lecturer to engage in various social events, deal with parents and their complains, etc. I joined academia specifically to pursue my passion for knowledge and research, teaching. Personally, I'm not keen on how they justify things in disguise of "helping the Faculty".
On the other hand, it's a good university with decent salary and I will be stuck here for 2 years anyway. I want to pursue PhD as well and I believe that experience in academia will look good on my CV. I negotiated before and failed miserably. For context, I live in a 3rd-world country and sadly we still have this work culture of work-life integrated (you should not separate work from personal life, make your work your life too), don't be picky and do what you're asked to do because it's a challenge, etc. In my last negotiation, they gave an example of another lecturer who rejected many administrative tasks and indeed he's currently having a hard time at work with less support from the Faculty. I don't want that to happen to me, I don't want to make my job any harder because I just started my contract. I want to minimize the negative repercussions, that's why instead of saying no, I want to try negotiate again. I believe I can reach them but I need better approach.
Any advice on how should I proceed in this kind of situation ?
EDIT :
The original deal mentioned my responsibilities will be 40% research, 20% teaching and the rest is a mixture of small fractions on tasks such as self-development / training, lecturer administrative task (creating exams, grading, etc), community service, etc. The new post will be 60% administrative tasks and the rest is divided for research & teaching, I don't know yet how much percentage each will be. As I mentioned, I'm currently being plotted to this position therefore I'm currently being involved in this 60% administrative stuff, not all yet, but soon will be, and I'm already overwhelmed. I would love to stick to the original deal if possible.

Could you add how many percent of your time you expend to spend on such activities in the long run (i.e., after you got used to them)? It will probably make a difference whether the number is 1% or 75%.

...also, does "jobdesk" mean something like a "responsibilities of the holder of the position"? A dictionary or google search for that term doesn't find anything defining the term.

@DCTLib yes, it refers to responsibility, I have updated my question to answer both of your questions. Thank you.

Thanks for the update. It makes the question more clear. A counter-question: are you sure that it will stay 60% admin? Apart from the time spent at the actual actual activities, you will become more efficient in preparing these activities over time.

@DCTLib this kind of percentage is written clearly on the paper as a performance indicator and the Dean himself mentioned this number, therefore, I'm sure it is 60%. You are correct on "apart from the time spent at the actual activity ", but the actual activity itself is what that I try to avoid. For example, 3 hours parent's meetings, 2 hours marketing presentation, 2 hours of admission progress report. It's not something that can be efficient over time, every week it's always the same slot of time for these events.

Seems like a conversation with a local employment lawyer may help. You have a contract with a penalty to leave (unusual in the US to say the least), but they are changing your job assignment so it no longer matches your contract. That may be grounds to escape the contract without penalty.

@JonCuster Yes, this is what I thought as well. At the same time, there may be local academic customs to be taken into consideration. The questions doesn't have precise location, information, however. And even if it had, it's unclear if anybody of the regulars here know the country enough to give a good answer.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should I keep my orbit around a prospective PhD supervisor, and how do I politely do that?
I am planning to pursue a PhD and I have been in touch with a prospective supervisor in a different country. He is currently employed with a research center affiliated with a university, where many of researchers from this research center are pursuing their PhDs at the affiliated university. Therefore, as you can tell I haven't been in touch with an actual university supervisor. Our research interests are match made in heaven, he is very supportive with a research topic that I proposed and already offered to supervise me for my PhD. With this pandemic, and I guess not being a "university", funding was our problem. He informed me that he is trying to get funding by submitting proposals and will let me know if there is any update.
My last email with him was in early May (4 months ago). As a former master student in graduate school, I know by heart how forgetful even my own supervisor could be, and in this case, especially when I am only a stranger to him from 4 months ago. I am worried that he's already forgotten about me. Should I keep my orbit around him ? And how do I politely do that ?
I have some plans, including sending an email to ask/confirm information regarding funding sources that I have tried to gather myself this past few months. However, being a professional researcher in my target country and the funding sources being from there as well, I believe he'd probably be more aware of this information that I am about to send. Also most funding sources would require a university host as a partner, and him being affiliated with a research center instead of university, I am not sure if my funding information would be useful / applicable in our case. I am afraid I would bother / offend him instead by asking.
In the end, I have 2 questions :

Should I keep my orbit around him ? If yes, how do we politely do that ?
He is been looking for funding to support my proposal, could I send an email inquire an update on this ? Also, is it polite for me to inform any information regarding funding that I have gathered myself ?

I'd appreciate any advice, thank you.

The information that you are probably missing is that even if he managed to submit a funding proposal, it can easily take >6 months until he hears back from them. Unless he wrote you in the past that he submitted a proposal, it's fair to ask if his plan to submit a funding proposal worked out. You can mention that in the meantime, you have been searching for other potential funding options for the case that the proposal is not granted.

@DCTLib Thank you, that's a good point. He did mention he's trying to submit, but there's no further information / update whether he actually has submitted. I'm going to send my email asking for some more information on this as well.

As somebody who has been in the situation of your potential supervisor I can say that having an email once in a while with a reasonable request or some useful information can't hurt. Even information that ultimately will not lead to anything or I already know is OK as long as it is clear to me that it could seem potentially useful from your point of view. The suggestion of @DCTLib in the comments surely makes sense. Indeed you never know what people have on their plate, it may be a lot and they may forget you, although not having an email from him for four months does not necessarily mean that you are forgotten. It may or it may not be.
Personally I appreciate if people show some determination, but there is a fine line, and it is certainly also advisable to avoid communication that doesn't have a purpose other than "keeping an orbit around someone". So contact him by all means with something that makes proper sense, but don't overdo it. There's honest and to some extent competent interest that is appreciated, and there's spamming people which isn't.  Writing after four months is certainly not overdoing it, writing once a week is, I'd say.

Thank you. I don't want to be passive and just wait for things to happen / for him to contact me first. I was just worried that I was in a rush because I am aware that submitting for a grant / funding will take a while. Your answer was very helpful for me since you've been in the same situation. So, sending an email asking for an update after a few months is okay, I'll send my email !

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


text:
Are there journals with the same "great big debate" format at Behavioral and Brain Sciences?
I've found that articles from Cambridge University Presses long-running journal of Brain and Behavioral Science (BBS) are a great way to enter a literature: they introduce the names, reveal the faultlines, the arguments, counter-arguments, and counter-counter-arguments, and provide a huge range of perspectives on an issue.  I recommend it to students all the time. But as I interact with students outside of the behavioral sciences, I find that I'd love to be aware of venues in other disciplines/areas with similar formats.
If you aren't familiar with BBS, articles work like this: core authors make a big picture argument in 30-40 pages, BBS editors solicit 1-page responses from 20-30 strong researchers in every relevant discipline, core authors organize a 15-20 page response.  The result is a very long but quite comprehensive view into a whole research area, and articles are consistently engaging. Instead of getting one short paper by one set of authors with one background and agenda, you get tens of authors batting it out.
BBS calls the model Open Peer Commentary. Does this kind of format exist in any other journal or discipline.  Does this ring a bell?

Although I haven't seen this format in particular (and I'm a neuroscientist, maybe I should be paying more attention!) it looks like Open Peer Commentary is also a phrase used by other journals, so searching based on that phrase may help you find journals in other fields relevant to your interests.
A less-formal approach that is somewhat similar is "post publication peer review", although at least in my experience these venues have not really taken off. PubMed Commons, for example, was discontinued after a pilot. These formats allow for online comments on published papers, but not in a curated format like your example.


text:
Arxiv Journal Ref field updation guidelines and examples for published Conference papers
ArXiv has a section called Journal Ref where a researcher can add a publication reference for their paper published in a journal or proceedings. For a journal the rules and example provided is clear, which states:

Indicate the volume number, year, and page number (or page range).

However for conferences, especially IEEE conferences, the proceedings are usually published in IEEE Xplore, and not in a proceedings book, thus they don't have a volume number, issue number etc.
Let's take my paper here, published in IEEE RAICS 2020, as an example, what'd be an appropriate Journal ref for this? Thanks to @scaahu's comment, I was thinking of going with <Title, year, page range> as below:

2020 IEEE Recent Advances in Intelligent Computational Systems (RAICS), 2020, pp. 201-206

Should I drop the year, as it's already in the title, or does it not matter.
Currently, I was unable to find any related Questions when I searched online. Also, if you can give some more illustrative examples for Springer and Elsevier conferences too, what are the variations in those cases, I believe the answer would be even more helpful to future researchers.

Using the "Cite This" of the  IEEE link, I found this: A. J. Paul, "Recent Advances in Selective Image Encryption and its Indispensability due to COVID-19," 2020 IEEE Recent Advances in Intelligent Computational Systems (RAICS), Thiruvananthapuram, India, 2020, pp. 201-206, doi: 10.1109/RAICS51191.2020.9332513.

@scaaahu Thanks a ton, I've now proceeded to go to with <Title, year, page range>.

First of all, I applaud the OP for taking the time to update arXiv with a journal ref. This certainly helps researchers who want to correctly cite your work. I've done this many times, both for papers published in journals and in conferences. The usual technique is to figure out how the citation should appear when someone wants to cite the published version, and then put things into the arXiv fields to make its Journal Ref close to that. In the OP's case, a comment already told them how the relevant paper should be cited. This info is usually on the journal page, or sometimes I find it based on other authors who were published in the same venue (or, via Google scholar).
Lastly, don't stress about making the arXiv "journal ref" match exactly the style you see from the journal/conference. Recall that there are many different citation styles. When the person citing your work gets to the final stages of publication, the journal they publish in will touch up the bibliography to make all the styles match. Your goal is just to alert readers of the arXiv version that the paper was published, and to give them enough info to find it.


text:
Citing a paper published multiple times
This question is a special case of this one, which has no satisfying answer in my opinion.
I often encounter papers that have been published twice (or more), without any modification. An example is this one. First presented at the DLS'12 conference, and published in the proceedings. Then, the proceedings have been published in an issue of the ACM SIGPLAN. Notice that the paper is the same, same DOI, etc. However, there are two bibtex entries (one @inproceedings, one @article) which are similar, but not identical.
My question : in such cases, how should the paper be cited ? Using the @inproceedings entry or the @article ?
(Side question : Why is it the case that a single paper is published twice ?)

This may be a special feature of CS or not. We depend a lot on conferences for publishing work. The conferences usually publish proceedings. The first version is distributed at the conference to attendees and may have a limited run. It typically has the conference name on the cover. In the case cited, SIGPLAN, as is typical, will put a separate cover on the proceedings, turn it into a (regular) issue of the Notices and distribute that to all members whether they attend or not. It is really a service to the community, since not everyone can attend an important conference. It is possible that corrections are made between the two versions, but I don't think that is common.
If they are identical, you can cite either one with confidence that readers needing to follow the citation will find the paper.

Cite the one you used in your work - if the other has been updated then that may cause confusion...

Manuscripts should (generally) never be published twice. (Exceptions exist, e.g., a famous academic's works might be compiled into a single volume.) A manuscript may be published at a conference (@inproceedings) and then subsequently be published in a journal (@article). However, journal versions are required to extend conference versions. In such cases, you have several options:

Cite both
Cite the version where the relevant result first appeared
Cite the conference version and mention the journal version in the reference


text:
How to tell pushy "advisors" to back off?
TL;DR
What can a PhD student on a research stay abroad do about postdocs that are supposed to be collaborators but behave like "helicopter advisors"?
Background
A friend of mine is doing her PhD (fourth year) in Europe (in a STEM field) and she asked her PhD advisor for the possibility of a research stay abroad. So the advisor told her to contact some professor-acquaintances of his and one of them (at a very famous US university) had a project she could work on but no funds to pay her. She therefore applied for funding and stipends in her home country and managed to scrape up enough money to go and stay for some months. Half of this time has passed by now.
The Situation
She is working on said project together with two postdocs who will be co-authors on a possible paper resulting from it. The professor who invited her will of course also be a co-author but he is not very closely involved. The postdocs, on the other hand, seem to believe they need to track her every step and micro-manage her. All while being very demanding since they are looking for faculty positions. They will (both, sometimes one after the other, sometimes together) come to her office on an almost daily basis to be shown any progress she made. Also, they will schedule frequent meetings (in addition to the weekly group meeting) for her to report on what she has been doing and to give her tasks to complete. From what she's telling me, for her these meetings feel like it's two big guys against her. She tried to involve the professor in the meetings but all that did was make it feel like three big guys against her. She has also started working in the library and that has taken some pressure out since now the postdocs won't just come by and demand seeing her progress.
The Problem
However, the feeling of constantly being pushed and having to prove herself is starting to take a toll and I'm seriously worried about her mental well-being. She's not sleeping well, has considered just dropping everything and going home (something she usually never does), and sometimes she seems close to breaking down.
Now on the one hand I don't think the postdocs are doing this maliciously (they haven't reacted negatively to her starting to work in the library), it just seems to me like they have little experience in supervising students (which is odd, considering that they are looking for faculty positions) and interpersonal relations aren't really their strength. I mean not even an undergraduate student should be supervised so closely in my opinion, let alone someone reaching the end of their PhD who is funded from abroad and is basically a visiting collaborator. And on the other hand, to some degree, it's probably also her personality that's making this difficult since she really values working independently and maybe it's a cultural/language thing that has prevented her from being able to make that clear. But all this does not change the fact that something has to happen. Unfortunately, I wasn't really able to give her any good advice on how to make them understand that they're pushing too much and need to give her more freedom.
The Question
So what can I tell her to do when she asks the next time? How can she improve this situation without burning bridges?

That sounds like a pretty standard situation in many labs. I don't think discussions on a daily basis and meeting on a weekly basis with a grad student who has only a couple of months experience and a short/strict timeline to finish a project are considered extreme.

"I mean not even an undergraduate student should be supervised so closely in my opinion" This is totally wrong.  Daily supervision is appropriate for beginning researchers, which is what undergraduate researcher often are.  In fact, my department requires that all undergraduates working in labs be supervised constantly.

@AnonymousPhysicist Also, there is a wide variety of behavior that counts as supervision... If a guest would come in my lab with a goal to finish a project in a couple of months, I would definitely ask him/her on a daily basis "if everything is going as planned" and have regular meetings. In the case of a student, I would definitely go more in details, especially that he/she may have not to experience basic stuff like safety regulations, ordering necessary items, measurements etc... And let's not discount the factor that this is a story told by one person who talked with a person...

Take a look at scrum/agile--specifically, the daily stand-up, 5 minute meeting. But you could certainly try emailing the post-docs at the end-of-day with what you did and what you plan to do the next day.

I think it's also worth considering that the study-abroad lab experience is located in the US, there's definitely differences between how PhD programmes are run in the US and Europe.

@Greg: 4th year PhD "student" (e.g. in German you're actually not called student any more at that stage) in Europe means that the person in question has been a fully qualified professional for more than 3 years. Speaking from a German STEM perspective, the described supervision is far more closely than what would be considered appropriate for a Master thesis over here. (Yes, unknown administrative procedures and differences in safety ways are to be considered - but that's not what is described here). I tend to agree with PandaPants that cultural differences may explain part of this.

@cbeleites 1) I happened to work in three continents, had German supervisors and know several scientists from Germany Ph.D. programs, so I can assure you your experience is not universally true even in your own country. 2) Graduate students are called students in English. 3) If you are so experienced, you should be able to professionally handle collaborations and discussion about your work. It shouldn't stress you out. Actually, with most visitors, even professors, daily discussion on the research is pretty useful. 4) A student may know (much) less than he/she thinks.

Daily meetings tend to be useful when projects are going well, and every day you have a quick update.The same meetings tend to be horribly stressful if you're sleep-deprived, depressed, or otherwise unable to make progress most days. Your friend sounds like she's having a terrible time; it might be that taking some time off for her sleep, health, and happiness would not only allow her to enjoy her time abroad, but also make the daily meetings much more tolerable when she returns.

It's hard to tell exactly what's happening here.

It does not seem unreasonable for collaborators to sync up daily. Ideally all three of you would be syncing up with each other, rather than just this student syncing up with her supervisors -- but since she is only staying for a short time and working on a single project, it is sort of natural that there is an imbalance. I wonder if the student is interpreting standard collaboration/teamwork as "pushing" and "having to prove herself".

But I can also see scenarios where the supervisors are really being overbearing and negatively affecting progress.

Either way, this is not the student's preferred work style, so I would consider trying to schedule some standing meetings. Maybe send a brief e-mail that says something like:

Hi guys,
I'd like to schedule some additional meetings where we could all sync up on the nuclear waste project. So far we've just been doing these discussions "on the fly", but I think it might be better for all of us if we had a set time for the three of us to sync up. Maybe Tuesdays and Thursdays at 1 PM? Please let me know.
Worried

They may react with

No, things are fine, you're doing great, just keep doing what you're doing

In which case, you can say bluntly:

I'd really prefer to have a set time -- that way I can prepare a summary of my progress/questions in advance, and won't have so many interruptions during the rest of the week. Could we give it a try?

If they still push back after that,  you may have to accept that this is how the group operates.

Although perhaps MWF would be better given that the current standard is daily. Another alternative is to do these informal exchanges via Slack or similar, rather than in person.

My thinking behind twice per week was that it sounds like there is already a weekly group meeting that involves the professor, so this would be three per week total. But hard to tell from here what the best number is.

It's possible that we do not know how to address the real issues here because we do not know exactly what is being said between the supervisors and the student.  However, overall it seems like you have unreasonable expectations for how supervision should occur.

Daily meetings are perfectly reasonable for a PhD student working in a new environment.  Some PhD students do not need to have a meeting every day, but some do.  It should take months to figure out the appropriate meeting frequency.
Supervisors should, in fact, push students to do better work.  If this is done appropriately (we do not know based on your question), the student should feel they are improving themselves, not proving themselves.
Avoiding the supervisors is not appropriate, professional behavior.
As @cag51 says, it is appropriate to request that meetings occur at predictable times.
If supervisors express themselves in a way that is not constructive, it is appropriate to ask them to rephrase their criticism as constructive feedback.  For example, "What would you like me to do to improve X?"

Seeing that many answers that seem to actually come from the US find the described supervision pattern good/normal/expected,
I'd like to put in a (slightly old-fashioned) European STEM perspective.
However, I'd first like to say that this cultural difference is somewhat unexpected for me. I did a research stay in Canada between finishing my Diplom and beginning my PhD (so a bit earlier than friend) and the experience was quite different from what is described here: true collaboration as opposed to checking up on progress.
So together with the other answers, I'd say that the cultural difference probably does play a role but inexperience of the supervisors probably also adds to that (not recognizing that the close supervision isn't needed and actually hampers progress).

About the cultural difference:
For European PhD "programs*" a sufficiently good Master is typcially the prerequisite.
So any PhD student** in Europe is a fully qualified professional (though I do see recently a tendency to tell the PhD "students" that the PhD is still part of their qualification program/schedule)

The Master thesis demonstrates that the (then-still) student is able to work out a research topic of manageable complexity (6 - 12 months) essentiall on their own, i.e. with slight guidance by the supervisor.
(The more guidance the lower the mark)
A PhD thesis in this framework demonstrates that the candidate is able to work out a fairly complex (3 years FTE) research topic on their own. On their own means very importantly means that they'll organize themselves, get collaborations going etc. Of course they'll discuss with supervisors and peers, and of course senior scientists have far more experience of a wider fiels - however in the narrow field of the PhD topic, the "student" is expected .

I wrote above that this is  a slightly old-fashioned point of view: things develop into the direction that PhD students are less free in their choice of project and milestones (but paid more) and also more closely supervised.
If the friend comes from a group with the old-fashioned European perspective, the described micro-management is not only unpleasant as micro-management, but for the student it may carry the unspoken notion that the student is essentially failing: if they were doing fine, such a close supervision would not be necessary.

So what can I tell her to do when she asks the next time?

Maybe you could reflect with your friend whether this is a contributing point to the issue. If so, I'd suggest that

knowing about the cultural difference may already relieve the friend's stress a bit, and
explaining to the collaborators (incl. professor) that this difference a) unfortunately means that the current close supervision causes a lot of stress and b) friend is actually used to and able to work far more independently and would wish to do so already there.

I've been in a micro-managed research group (in Europe) after 8 years in various not-micro-managed research groups and found it quite stressful and prone to conflicts. For me it certainly diod carry the impression of distrust in my work/professional abilities. It took a considerable amount of reflection to realize what exactly was going on. I decided to refuse that suggestion. I think this kept me healthy - but it certainly did not make me a meek member of staff (i.e. from their point of view: difficult to manage). I'm emphasizing this here because getting to that decision and not just becoming mad at the supervisor took considerable mental energy.

I find that being in a foreign country with a foreign work culture (even if within the Western cultures) and probably foreign language already requires more mental energy than just living "as usual" at home.
Here this may mean that friend's mental resources are already strained without the difficulties at work. Which firstly hampers reflection about what is going on. Secondly, even with reflection she may not be able to brush off of the micro-management as she'd be able to do at home.
However, she may still be able to communicate this to the collaborators. The collaborators in turn may realize that micro-management is counterproductive here if that is clearly pronounced. (At least, there's a chance)
Another nuance to this is that at some point during my stay I got homesick. But I didn't realize it until long afterwards that that's probably how it is called. Nevertheless, it didn't help in terms of equanimity - I'm afraid I became quite grumpy. I'm writing this because what I remember is that I felt decidedly hampered and restricted (by external circumstances, not by collaborators - but I do smell a possible relation to what you describe). That could be a contributing point that doesn't have to do with the collaborators themselves - but again reflecting and communicating this may allow them to help her.
What is worse than micro-management is the combination of micro-management with unspoken rules. So I totally agree with the call for clear spelled-out rules and explanations in some of the other answers.
One such communication could be to say (friend) that she does want to productively collaborate with her supervisors. As the current mode is hampering her due to the stressful experience/connotations she cannot help (for the moment), she suggests to turn around the mode: the supervisors will let her work undisturbed, and she'll call on them (alternatively, schedule meetings).
Possibly, also the style of the meetings could be changed. The description in the question is supervision, not collaboration: supervisors hand out tasks and check completion. Collaboration means that they all should also work on the subject together. (To put it a bit more bluntly, pushing and checking completion of tasks is management, but not an intellectual contribution to a paper in itself). Maybe friend can close her description of what she did with a description of what her next steps are going to be. The collaborators of course can suggest changes, but they'll need to convince her, as she ultimately decides what she does next.
There is no description in the question whether the collaborators actually do think together with friend through her recent results and discuss these scientifically and intelligently. Acting as such discussion partners to help friend to sharpen her thoughts and ideas and contributing their insights are proper contributions on the side of the collaborators.
@OP: maybe you can reflect together with your friend whether such scientific input does take place. If so, that's what she's actually come to that group for - it may be helpful for her to fully appreciate this. First for herself and then also to communicate to the collaborators that she does realize and appreciate this.
If on the other hand this is lacking, I'd say she should clearly formulate her expectation of such a collaboration.

* they are often not very much like anything that is usually called a program. They are almost pure research.
** In German, they are not even called student (nor do they have to enroll to university as students - although they are allowed to do so in order to get some benefits such as cheap bus/train tickets)

There is clearly a mismatch in how your friend is being supervised and how she is most effectively supervised. Resolving this will be both helpful for her and her postdoc supervisors: your friend will learn how to create an effective collaboration and her supervisors will learn that supervision requires a certain empathy and understanding of the person you're supervising.
For me personally, for example, the behavior of those postdocs would drive me up the wall. I have no problem whatsoever with daily progress reports and supervision, but a feeling that I'm being pushed/rushed is very counter productive to me. I'm very capable of pushing myself. I would also be quite surprised if a fourth year PhD student who has managed to get funding for a research stay abroad needs any sort of external motivation.
Obviously, your friend working in the library to avoid her supervisors is not a workable solution and will lead to an ineffective collaboration.
Your friend should probably reach out to her supervisors to discuss exactly how they want to structure the collaboration. If I had to have a conversation like this, I'd touch on the following points: everyone wants this project to succeed in an ambitious time frame, she's grateful for the amount of time the postdocs are spending on her and there's nothing wrong with daily progress updates. However, the way they are currently structured (your friend should mention more clearly what she finds difficult) is counter productive because they are unduly stressing her out and this is close to influencing the quality of her work. Maybe they can find a better solution?

It seems possible that both of these things are true:

The situation is fairly standard, there is no intentional disrespect or interference, and your friend's input is valued
Your friend's colleagues are failing in important and unnecessary ways to contribute to an environment in which she can be happy and productive.

We don't really know about #1, but IMO it's best to assume that's the case unless it becomes very clear that it's not.
You ask what you can do, and I think the most important thing is simply to listen, and affirm/validate her take on the situation, and encourage her to talk it through with you.
Beyond that, she might focus some careful thought on who her strongest (potential) ally in the university is. It might be somebody in the department that she relates to and communicates with well, or it might be somebody she doesn't know very well, but who has a lot of experience managing student projects. She should talk to them as well, and see if there might be some insights/nuances she is not picking up on due to linguistic or cultural barriers. Since there are real and/or perceived professional consequences for each of her co-authors, she may have an opportunity to build a better relationship with the "helicopters" by demonstrating that she is mindful of them, and can contribute to positive outcomes in their own careers.
I think the key is to find a way to broach the subject in a clear, non-judgmental, and non-confrontational way. More or less, "You may not realize it, but my work style is easily disrupted by frequent interruptions. Do you think we could find a way to change our communication patterns so they have a better effect, but with less negative impact on my work routine?"
Doing that with the input or participation of an ally who understands the significance to her would probably help.

Seems fairly normal to me. Suggesting alternative meeting spaces or meeting types may be the right solution.
Your friend may suggest an alternative meeting space under the pretense/reasoning that it would be "more conducive to productivity" or "offer a change of atmosphere".

Pre-schedule the meetings like others have suggested.
Pick a neutral location she feels comfortable in.
A co-working space with unrelated others around.
Suggest keeping "impromptu" meetings remote via Zoom or Skype.


text:
Would scoring well on a non-required GRE Mathematics Subject Test make me more competitive?
I would like to get into a top university for graduate school, specifically in computer science.  Would taking the non-required mathematics subject based GRE test make my application more competitive?  Since it's not required, would the people doing admissions even consider it as a data point?

IMO, You'd  get better mileage by puuting more effort into preparing more for the verbal sections of the general exam

If this GRE test were really the bomb, it would be required. It seems that it's just some little extra, or not even that.

@Quora Feans Well, Princeton recommended it sometime ago for their CS program.  That is where I got the idea.  It tests 50% calculus 1,2,3, linear algebra, 25% algebra, real analysis, statistics, probability, and selected topics from topology, numerical analysis, group theory, ring theory, graph theory, etc..

No one here can speak for some admissions committee. They might look at it, might not. If they have strict rules they might even need to ignore it. It won't do you any harm, though and there is an outside chance it will make some small difference. But focus more on the things that they do ask for.
And, for what it's worth, the competition at top schools is fierce. Get good letters of recommendation.

Many things that impress one committee member will not impress
others.  I suspect it will not help much, and possibly could  hurt your chances a little in some cases.   What is most important are: letters of recommendation, academic records and experience.

Many people going into top CS programs are strong in math, so it doesn't really help to set you apart too much (except see 2), which is what you need to do to get in to the really competitive programs.  Even for math programs, your score on the GRE is not really considered much.  (The math on the GREs is not that advanced--it's mostly used as a way to weed out people who definitely shouldn't be going to top math programs.)  To impress committees with your mathematical abilities, you should take some advanced math classes, or at least math-heavy theoretical CS classes, and do really well in them.  Or you can do really well in the Putnam or similar.
Second, people might wonder why you've take the math GRE and sent this info to them.  The first thing people will probably guess is that you are also considering going to grad school in Math.  For many people, this won't be a concern, but maybe if you're on the borderline, depending on how the rest of your application reads, some committee members may worry that CS isn't your first choice.

Disclaimer: I'm in math, not CS, so it's possible my impression is mistaken, but if so, hopefully someone will correct me.

Well, Princeton recommended it sometime ago for their CS program.  That is where I got the idea.  It tests 50% calculus 1,2,3, linear algebra, 25% algebra, real analysis, statistics, probability, and selected topics from topology, numerical analysis, group theory, ring theory, graph theory, etc.

While there exists a small chance that an excellent result on a non-required GRE Subject will increase your chances to get admitted into a graduate school, I am not convinced it is worth the time and money.
The time to prepare and take this take could be more efficiently spent into preparing a better statement of intent, getting good letters of recommendation, or polishing your CV. I would consider doing some research/teaching-related volunteering as a better way to take a chance to slightly improve your graduate school application, which might be reflected in all three aforementioned documents.
Totally agree with @Buffy's answer: it's hard to say about a particular admissions committee; however, the expected impact of you having this result is very small. And the graduate school applications have a lot of items you can focus on anyway, and those items really make the difference.

I did some searching for research-related volunteering on this site, and the responses from professors seem to be geared towards volunteers are more of a hassle than a asset.  I suppose teaching related volunteer work I could look into.  Would volunteer tutoring work?  I have done some tutoring for algorithms and Analytical Geometry.

@GaryDrocella you should look into the research volunteering from a perspective of a student rather than a professor.

@GaryDrocella you are looking at getting extra points, anyway. volunteer tutoring can be presented nicely (in my mind) in your statement of intent, thus it might be valuable.

Yes, I will make sure to do that. Thanks!

Would taking the non-required mathematics subject based GRE test make my application more competitive?

It doesn't matter whether it will or not. In my opinion, you're fetishizing these tests.

Would scoring well on a non-required GRE Mathematics Subject Test make me more competitive?

Well, IMHO you're already too focused on competition. I respectfully suggest you focus more on what kind of actual research you're interested in, rather than your "score" against that of others, or the "score" of your future university against that of others etc.
If you had a potential subject you could contact relevant research groups directly.
If you're not sure what you want to pursue, scientifically, also consider the possibility that it might not be right for you to go into a graduate program right now (at least not one which is research-focused).
Many people - myself included - have made the mistake that graduate school is simply the next phase of undergraduate studies, with research being a sort of tougher homework; if this is ringing familiar to you, then - you're in for a rude awakening a couple of years down the line. A lot of graduate students experience anxiety and depression, often because of going in with the wrong motivation. Maybe this won't happen to you, but still - take your time thinking about these questions before you head off to some grad school.

How can you not focus on competition when you are applying for grad schools?  Universities can only take so many students.  It is inherently competitive.  What's the alternative?


text:
Should I get post-bacc in Mathematics or go straight to Computer Science Research?
I have just been hired to work in the IT Division at a top 10 University in the U.S., and they said that I can take classes at the college.
Currently, I have a B.S. in computer science and a minor in mathematics.  I'd like to do research in machine learning, and its application to computer security in graduate school.  I have a very cool idea for a research topic, which appears that no one else has written papers on.
There are two caveats to this.  One is I only have a 3.0 GPA, which is required for acceptance into graduate school.  Second, the mathematics required for machine learning seems to go beyond what I learned for my math minor.  Advanced statistical concepts, such as Hidden Markov Chains, which I've noticed is a topic covered in graduate level mathematics courses.
Should I go for a post-bacc in applied mathematics?  Should I teach myself the advanced math topics, and try to raise my GPA by taking some higher level undergrad classes in Computer Science?
Any guidance or suggestions are greatly appreciated.

I guess it depends on how far along you currently are with the math that will be needed for your cool idea.  Often math courses have to be taken sequentially.  So probably the first course to take would be a math course that will get you closer to your goal of hidden Markov chains. // For many people, the easiest way to learn a topic is with the structure of a class.  If they're going to waive tuition, then that would make a class more attractive still -- as long as the schedule is compatible with your work obligations.  I would start with one course per semester, as

working full time can be more tiring than one might think.  Another nice thing about the idea of taking classes while you're working there is that you'll be able to show improved grades.

Tough question, mostly because it seems it would have a lot to do with you and your overarching goals.  Is the goal to advance your career or is your goal to get the Master's degree and write that paper and publish?
It's tempting because you have the free course option right in front of you but you can take classes in machine learning from Coursera (for instance), for not much more. So if your goal is simply to move your career ahead school is likely not required at all.
But if you want to teach and publish and get that piece of paper then absolutely you'll need more school. Take undergraduate courses and get that GPA up and then apply to grad school.

Yes, I want to do all those things.  Are you saying I should go for post-bacc in math? or take undergraduate courses in cs?

So again my answer is "it depends" as this will vary from school to school and maybe even from department to department. Your school/department might even be willing to waive the GPA requirement taking into account that you are an employee -- or not.  Ask in the dean or registrar's office.

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


text:
What is the proper way to ask a professor to be your PhD supervisor?
I sent an e-mail to a professor that I did undergraduate research about 9-10 years ago wondering if he could write a letter of recommendation.  He replied saying that he didn't think he would have anything meaningful to say, which is completely understandable. I didn't really do any publication with the undergraduate research, but I did something that he called a sanity-check, which was work on a coding assignment on developing a Distributed File System using FUSE.  The idea was that if an undergrad can do it, then the grad students should be able to do it.
He also asked if I submitted anything to him.  I sent a reply on two e-books I published.  One of the e-books was referenced in a Russian Defcon (I didn't write it in Russian).  I also sent him a link to my blog.  After that, I asked if he could be a Ph.D supervisor.
I should have asked here before sending him the e-mail though.  I'm not really sure if this is the appropriate way to go about finding a Ph.D supervisor.

I would ask the opposite question ; how should a professor propose a potential PhD student to be her/his advisor

I don't think that your approach is not good.
It is always preferred to be straight to the point with direct focus on your aims and how would they fit into your potential hosting lab vision and goals.
Always, Keep It Short and Simple (this is called KISS principle).
However,
Some suggestions to enhance your odds:
0- Set your objectives and your target areas.
1- Get prepared by identifying your potential advisor' research interests by visiting his web site and his lab activities to see if it's fit to your needs.
2- Make a balance sheet between your strengths and weaknesses.
Don't be shy to identify your weaknesses, because you shall be providing an improvement plan on how to address them.
3- Try to come up and suggest some research topic that sticks with your potential advisors research interests.
Like this, your advisor will be more than glad to offer his/her expertise and embrace your proposal.
I believe by doing the aforementioned steps, you show that you are already on your way to a PhD. Such thing would be visible to your potential advisor and would be certainly appreciated.
Good luck.

Don't overcomplicate the issue, just say what you are looking for. A potential supervisor will want to establish a number of things: that you possess the basic qualifications to do the research that you want to do, that you are sufficiently motivated to take on what is a very big personal project (and that you can finance it), that the subject of your research fits in with the professor's own interests, and that the professor can be bothered to take on another research student (grad student in American English).
Consider my own case. When I decided I wanted to do a PhD in statistics, I had not done any formal academic work for many years. Although I had graduated in mathematics, and taken masters degrees in pure mathematics and in operational research, I had no academic referees (the people who had taught me were all long since retired, if not dead).
I sent very short emails to four (full) professors whom I selected by looking at university websites to check whether they were researching in the field that I was interested in. I had four responses:

You must take an MSc in statistics before we could consider you;
I have given up taking research students
I cannot take on any more research students: I have too many already
Please arrange a time when we can talk over the telephone.

In the telephone conversation with number 4, I explained why I wanted to do research in my subject, why I had selected that professor, and what work in that field I had already done (no publications, however I had given a talk at an academic conference). He then invited me to visit him. We then discussed in more detail all the matters described above, and he took me on.
My guess is that if I had sent long emails to any of the professors I would have got nowhere: those people are very busy, they do not read long emails from people they do not know.

Proper way is the simplest, no bs way. The main objective is to work in an area of research which is also of interest to the professor.
1- Indicate your somewhat broad research area of interest. (e.g quantitative finance/option pricing)
2- Point out similar research that the professor had published.
3- Sketch 2-3 ideas with specific purposes (e.g. hedging derivative portfolios with etfs), write something brief about what was done before but how your ideas can be novel.
4- Ask for a face to face meeting to discuss further details and prospective phd studies. Indicate even if it is not possible to do a phd together some discussion would be helpful. Perhaps he/she can refer to a more proper advisor.
Of course this only works if you already have a starting idea to dabble on in the following 4-6 years.


text:
Is it appropriate to summarise and paraphrase complex reviewer comments before providing my answer?
I received a review of my journal manuscript that is not organised in a way to facilitate the author reply. Its main problems are:

Sometimes one long paragraph discusses many related points. Quoting each sentence separately does not separate the ideas but produces rough ideas, and on the other hand, it is difficult to provide an organized answer directly without dividing the reviewer comment into distinct points using my own words. So, is it appropriate to do so? And can I e.g., start my answer with: This comment raised several points which are......, Below, my answer to each of them separately.
Sometimes, the same points are repeated many times in non-contiguous parts, e.g., a summary of a critique at the beginning of the review and some details in another comment and a suggestion concerning the same critique in another part. By following the typical way of answering the reviewer comments, I have to quote each part of the review and provide an answer. By doing so, the result will be: one answer repeated many times with separate, noncontiguous comments. So, is it appropriate to quote the noncontiguous parts that discuss the same idea together, summarise what the reviewer wrote, and then provide my answer?

"Quoting each sentence separately does not separate the ideas but produces rough ideas" I have no idea what this means. For me, quoting each sentence separately is the natural option.

It’s always better to quote the reviewers’ text directly. That way, there is no ambiguity as to what you’re responding to. (Moreover, many journals expect you to quote directly!) However, there is certainly no requirement that you must proceed step-by-step and quote everything in the reviewers’ responses exactly as presented. If something is mentioned multiple times, you could list the different references together, and provide one response for the group.

When something is mentioned multiple times, you could handle later mentions by saying something like "See response 3"

There was no official rule on any journal that I have ever dealt with. It all depends on what the editor would like to see. As long as the editor is OK with you paraphrasing, all will be well.
In the past, I have done exactly what you have suggested. I have also just copied representative remarks from the review and responded to those. Neither one of these approaches were frowned upon.

I usually just write enough to let the editor know what I've done as a result of the referee's report; very rarely does that involve direct quotations from the report.  The most recent referee report that I received ("most recent" being a surrogate for "randomly chosen") had 13 specific suggestions, many of them just corrections of typos. My note to the editors said that I incorporated all of the suggestions and then commented specifically on 3 of them (2 because they involved nontrivial changes in the paper, and 1 because I originally disagreed but then decided that the referee was right). Most of my responses to referee reports follow the same pattern --- comment where it's important but don't comment on trivialities and don't copy much if anything from the referee's report. I've never had a complaint from an editor about this.  (I wouldn't be surprised if other fields have editors who insist on having authors copy and reply to all comments, but it seems rather silly to me.)

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