Meraki

Do you have a policy for this in your syllabus? I tell my students that claiming credit for any ideas/work/writing that is not their own is plagiarism, and that includes AI-generated work. I would address this situation the same as any other plagiarism case, based on your university's policies. For me, I would give a zero on the assignment and report it to the university so it was on their record -- but again, I made it clear throughout the term that this would happen if they turned in AI-generated work, so it wouldn't be a surprise to them at that point. You may want to consult with another faculty member or office of student integrity (or whatever office handles disciplinary issues of this type) to ensure you are following the appropriate procedures.

R and Python are probably the most robust and intuitive. They are both also open source. I would say either is a good choice to learn, and probably pretty popular among faculty if you need assistance with programming. This can vary though by department area within the business school.

It looks like a lot of you already had some interviews, but I can share some thoughts. In business schools, research experience is helpful but most students don't have any, so it isn't a big deal to most faculty. I had research experience due to my background in psychology, and I don't think it helped me all that much. They want to know that you have some interest in their research areas, but don't be concerned if they don't want to hear all the details on your research questions - most students end up changing their interests/research questions as they go through the program and learn new things, so faculty may expect this. You want to have clear reasons though for applying to their program. I hope you all hear good news soon!

An active thread for business PhD applicants, awesome! I'm a current OB PhD student. Good luck to everyone!

This is the best advice. And do it early in your career, since publications take quite a bit of time. Not all projects will make it that far, so you can't count on a publication for each one you embark on. Having a pipeline is important, too. You might not have as many publications, but if you have a few in R&R status (especially a few rounds in, if your journals have the same process as mine), some in manuscript prep status or in data collection status, you clearly are on the right track to maintaining your productivity in the eyes of potential employers.

Do you work in academia or did you go into industry? Keep in mind that if they see you published without them, and feel that they should have been on the paper, this could permanently burn that bridge. So if you need recommendations or anything else from them later down the road, you won't likely get it. Also, if they have contributed anything - or feel like they contributed something - and they see they're not on the paper, they could choose to notify the journal of an unethical authorship practice. In short, this could get sticky. If you take their name off, be absolutely certain they made no significant (i.e., authorship-worthy) contribution to the paper. I doubt it'd go that far, but if the person is really that awful, you never know.

In your first semester, I would worry most about maintaining the minimum required GPA for funding and to stay off probation or getting dismissed (this is often a 3.0). If you're a PhD student heading toward tenure-track professor positions, research productivity (and teaching evals, recommendations, etc.) will usually be much more important down the road. Perhaps Fellowships may have a GPA range, but you should be able to look into that now by searching for a few and seeing what their requirements are. In my program, a B- is considered failing without the professor technically failing you, although it can tank your GPA below the minimum threshold. In other words, getting a C in any one class gets you probation in my program regardless of overall GPA, whereas a B- does not, but if it drags your GPA below 3.0 because your other grades aren't high enough, you're on probation anyway. Your program should have a handbook that details this for you.

Are you first author on these papers, assuming you're in a field that uses author order as a signal of contribution? If so, and since you've graduated, it is likely your call on when a paper is ready to submit to a journal. I say likely, because the specifics of your field may differ a bit from mine. But unless they are the lead investigator, I see no reason to expect them to follow through if no progress was made in 3 years, so communicating a decision to them may be best. However, I wouldn't submit anything to a journal that hasn't received feedback in some form, such as through a presentation, either. They do have a point about making a paper the best it can be to improve its chances of publication.

Every advisor/program is different, but try to think of it this way: There are typically many qualified applicants in any given admissions cycle. The department/advisor does their best to whittle down the list of potential admits based on scores, experience, and research interests. Sometimes, there is a seemingly perfect match - a potential student wanting to do exactly the type of research the advisor does/wants to start doing, but I'd say this is often not the case. The "best" candidate may be only marginally "more qualified" than the second and third choice. Sometimes, as Psygeek said, there's really no difference and it's essentially a coin flip. So it's unlikely that your advisor had an emotional attachment to the idea of working with their first choice student and are now disappointed they have you. Rather, they're probably not bothered either way as long as you are productive and progressing as expected. Sometimes, the second or third choices end up doing better than the first choice, as grades and experience only tells you so much about a person. Ambition, creativity, and the sort are more important once you're in.

Typically readers will want to know enough about your methods to potentially do a replication, if desired. Failure to disclose enough about the methods could lead to a rejection if you are submitting it to a journal, or at least a revision requesting the missing information. Not stating how something was done can also raise some eyebrows as to the validity of the method and subsequent results if the method and/or author is unfamiliar. However, if this is a relatively common method in your field - and you personally just don't happen to know how it's done - you might get away with being more broad, as readers will know what you're referring to or be able to find other sources to inform them. In the latter case, I've seen papers say something like, "The transformation was conducted by a member of the research team as suggested/conducted by Author et al. (2016)." They don't go into details themselves, but rather point the reader to another paper if they care to know the details. However, in order to write it up that way, you still need some idea of what was done and who might have established the method or used it in another paper. Can you reach out to the cooperator yourself and ask if they have a few minutes to discuss the method?

It's typical to have more than one hypothesis in this type of research. It would be difficult, I think, to write a good paper with just one predictor and one outcome variable. Perhaps you could add a mediator and/or moderator to make the study a bit more interesting. As it stands, the hypothesis isn't all that surprising, and I wonder what the contribution might be to the literature. (I do realize this is an undergraduate thesis and not likely aiming for an A-publication, but I think trying to add one or two more hypotheses would strengthen the final product if a grade is involved). Aha - the disenfranchised grief might serve as a moderator depending on the story you tell. You might also want to consider other outcome variables, such as how grief severity might lead to other aspects of a person's wellbeing. In that case, grief severity would become a mediator. You can do a simple regression analysis for this type of relationship. As for the research question, think about what your motivation is for doing this kind of research. Why is it important to do this kind of research - how does it help people experiencing the loss of a pet, and/or how does it help advance research in this area? Your research question should be interesting and address a gap in the research that hasn't been filled. I don't think your original research question was bad, it just needs a little focus. Your subquestions seem to be addressing a few different things and gets messy, but stepping back and trying to draw a clearer path, as you seem to be doing, will help. Feel free to message me if you'd like to discuss further.

If its run by a management agency, you should be able to search online for reviews from prior tenants. I would be more wary submitting a deposit if its just some random person renting out an apartment in a home they own. Are you looking for your own place or a room with roommates? That will make a difference in what you might be able to do to reduce risk. Does the school offer housing to grad students? Many students out of the area may start off there and then move out after the first year (if this is a PhD program. It's not really worth the hassle of moving if it's a shorter program). Being that it's summer, it could be that a lot of students took vacation or are less productive and not keeping up with their email. Depending how long it's been since you reached out to your peers, I wouldn't write it off as empty promises just yet.

I do not know much about emerging technologies research to provide suggestions. However, trying to find research articles that you find interesting and seeing where the authors are from is probably the best thing you can do. You might also consider that some business schools house the economics department at their university, so you can reap some of the business school benefits while staying in the economics field if you like. I'm not sure how common this is, but it might be something to look into. After doing a quick search on Google Scholar, are the below articles the type of research you might be interested in? The PDFs should be available on Scholar. I'm trying to get a better idea of what you're interested in, since you mentioned OB, which is much more micro-level social psychology work. The following articles would stem more from a strategic management specialization, which relates more closely to economics and sociology. If you're interested in either of those fields, strategy is a better fit and would be housed in the management department at schools that offer that specialization. Alva Taylor & Constance Helfat (Dartmouth College). 2009. Organizational Linkages for Surviving Technological Change Wanda Orlikowski (MIT). 2000. Using Technology and Constituting Structures I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I'll supply some thoughts. Business schools tend to pay much higher stipends than other fields. You will also pretty much need to do a post-doc in psych and some other related fields to get a placement, and even then, the job market is much more fierce in those areas. You can get tenure-track placements in business schools without a post-doc, although students may still choose to do them for various reasons. Although the job market is still highly competitive in business, it is healthier than many other fields if you are able to relocate for a job. As for the specific topic area, I mentioned strategic management may be being a good fit with all of the aforementioned benefits. Psychology (social, IO psych) is quite different from how you'd study this topic in economics and even sociology, so I think you need to figure out which perspective is most appealing to you. This may vary by program, but in general, you have more options to work with different people. In psychology, for example, you are typically funded by a PI's research grant, and so you need to work for them and their funded project areas, reducing your autonomy. However, business schools are pretty well funded through their programs, so you're not usually tied to a single PI. This allows you to work with more people and find a better fit. That said, there needs to be *some* overlap of interests in order to get a PI interested in advising your work, and you'll still be working on their projects to gain experience, so choosing a program where no one is doing related work may not be a good fit for you.

This could be highly program specific. In mine, we do not receive a separate reading list or really have any way of preparing for exams other than to be organized with past notes and ideally have a reference software. But we aren't asked about specific topics or papers we've read in the past. We're meant to apply our critical thinking to critique new papers given at the start of the exam week and then create our own theoretical relationships. It's the sort of thing where you should know what you're doing by now and if not, you're screwed. But I know other fields or even programs in my same field that do things quite differently. OP's program kinda sounds like mine for qualifying exams, although it's definitely something to ask other students about early and often, and especially ask students a year ahead of you when they're fresh from completing their own exams. It's amazing how quickly we put that stuff behind us and forget the details of the experience.

It sounds like you're weighing reviewer/editor comments more heavily than your advisor's if you would rethink the logic only after hearing their comments, but not after hearing your advisor's comments. I would be careful having that discussion, as that suggests you can't learn as much from your advisor or that you don't trust his judgment. Also, if your paper is rejected, you can't always resubmit it to the same journal unless there are substantial changes - though this may differ by field/journal. That's why it isn't wise to "test" things or use reviewers as tie-breakers as it may close doors for a particular project. It's great to have confidence in your logic and abilities, but you also want to keep an open mind so you don't miss out on opportunities. At this point, your advisor will have much more experience with what journals are looking for. Now, you asked if you shouldn't feel this way. I think it's fine to question the process and we all feel unmotivated at some point (or many points) during our programs, so it's completely normal. But there are certain expectations we have to learn if we want to build good relationships and be successful. This is my least favorite part of the process - learning the politics - but this can be very important to some advisors, departments, and fields. Take each experience as a lesson learned even if it doesn't go your way, and you'll be fine. You will gain freedom in your projects as you progress through the program, and you may feel grateful for those early guardrails when you look at your past work.