| Course | GB700 Doctoral Studies in Business |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion board post |
| Length | About 480 words, 2 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 discussion post |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB700 Unit 1
Will Free Degrees Cut Turnover by 40 Percent? A Unit 1 Discussion Post on Practitioner and Scholarly Claims
GB700 · Unit 1 Discussion Post
Posted by [Student Name]
The candidate, the bank, the memo and the vendor report are composite and illustrative; the studies cited are real.
Initial Post
Last year I wrote a memo to our board proposing that the bank replace its $5,250-a-year tuition reimbursement with a program that pays the full cost of degrees up front for branch and operations staff. The memo's central sentence was: "Paying the full cost of degrees will cut our turnover by 40 percent." My source was a case study published by an education benefits vendor, describing one large insurer whose participants left at much lower rates than non-participants. I want to test that sentence as a doctoral reader would.
Who was studied. The case study described salaried employees at one insurer, many already holding degrees and enrolling in graduate programs. Our target group is hourly tellers and operations staff, most without a bachelor's degree. The finding may apply, but the memo assumed it.
How strong a verb the evidence earns. The vendor compared participants with non-participants. Employees who choose to enroll may already be the ones planning to stay, so the comparison cannot show that the program caused lower turnover. Manchester (2012) found, in data from one large employer, that much of the retention benefit of tuition programs came from attracting and sorting employees who were more likely to stay. That evidence supports "may reduce," not "will cut by 40 percent."
What the memo left out. Benson et al. (2004), studying a large firm's tuition reimbursement records, found that employees taking classes were less likely to leave while enrolled, but that those who completed degrees were more likely to leave afterward unless they were promoted. My memo said nothing about what happens after graduation, which is where the risk lies.
A practitioner argument asks what we should do with what we know; a scholarly argument first asks how much we know, about whom, and for how long.
A scholarly version of my sentence would read: "Tuition programs are associated with lower turnover among participants, partly because they attract employees inclined to stay; evidence from one large firm suggests that graduates who are not promoted may become more likely to leave." It is weaker, and it is honest.
My question for classmates: what claim in your recent work rests on a source with an interest in the answer?
Reply to Dana
Dana, your plan to justify a leadership program by its participants' promotion rates has the same selection problem as mine. Who was nominated for the program? If managers picked their strongest people, the program's graduates would be promoted more often whether or not the program taught them anything. A comparison with equally rated employees who were not nominated would tell you more.
References
Benson, G. S., Finegold, D., & Mohrman, S. A. (2004). You paid for the skills, now keep them: Tuition reimbursement and voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 315-331. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159584
Manchester, C. F. (2012). General human capital and employee mobility: How tuition reimbursement increases retention through sorting and participation. ILR Review, 65(4), 951-974. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979391206500408
Reading the GB 700 Unit 1 instructions
The first GB700 discussion asks you to compare a practitioner argument with a scholarly one, ideally using a claim you have made or seen at work. Quote the claim and name its source. Then test it the way a doctoral reader would: who was studied, how strong a conclusion the evidence supports, and what contrary evidence was left out. Cite the studies you use by author, year and journal so a reader can check them. Rewrite the claim as a scholar would state it, and say what was lost and gained. End with a question for classmates. Replies should apply the same tests to a classmate's claim. Most sections expect about 420 words for the post and 150 to 170 for a reply, in APA 7.
Inside the GB700 Unit 1 example
The post quotes the board memo's sentence and its source, an education benefit vendor's case study of one insurer. Three tests follow in bold run-in paragraphs. The population test notes that salaried insurance staff are not hourly bank tellers. The strength test uses Manchester's sorting finding to show that a participant comparison earns may, not will. The omission test brings in Benson and colleagues on graduates leaving unless promoted. The highlighted sentence separates what practitioners and scholars each ask first. A rewritten claim shows the weaker but honest version, and the post ends by asking classmates which of their own sources has a stake in its answer. The reply raises the same selection problem in a classmate's leadership program.
Where the points sit in the GB700 Unit 1 rubric
Points on this first GB700 board go to the quality of the tests. A claim quoted exactly, with its source, gives the instructor something concrete to evaluate. Each test, population, evidence strength and omitted evidence, earns credit when it is applied with a specific study rather than a general caution. Citations precise enough to be checked show doctoral habits from the start. A rewritten claim that keeps what the evidence supports, without hedging everything, demonstrates judgment. GB700 instructors then look at whether the final question and the reply carry the three tests over to another person's claim. A tone that treats practitioner reasoning with respect rather than scorn, and correct APA 7 references, round out the grade.
GB700 Unit 1 help from the desk
Many first GB700 posts describe the difference between practitioner and scholarly writing in general terms without testing any actual claim, which leaves nothing to grade. Others attack a claim without saying what evidence would support a better one. A common gap is citing a study by topic or headline rather than by author, year and journal. Writers sometimes rewrite the claim so cautiously that it says nothing. Replies often agree with the classmate without testing anything. Quote a real claim, test who was studied, how strong a verb the evidence earns and what was omitted, rewrite it honestly and use the reply to run the same tests on another claim. Request a free custom post built around your own workplace claim.
Get a GB700 Unit 1 example written to your instructions
Forward the discussion prompt and the rubric your section grades against, and name a claim from your own work that you would like tested. Within 24-48h a custom post comes back taking that claim through the doctoral tests, with a reply modeled on a classmate's topic if you supply one. A first request costs nothing. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB700 papers and MBA samples
- GB700 Unit 2: Article Critique
- GB700 Unit 3: Literature Search Log
- GB700 Unit 4: Source Evaluation Memo
- GB700 Unit 5: Synthesis Matrix
- GB700 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB700 Unit 7: Scholarly Voice Exercise
- GB700 Unit 8: Research Integrity Analysis
- GB700 Unit 9: Problem Statement Draft
- GB700 Unit 10: Doctoral Position Paper
- GB601 Unit 1: Problem Statement and Scope
- GB600 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB590 Unit 1: Ethical Dilemma Post
- GB580 Unit 1: Company Selection Memo
GB700 Unit 1 questions, answered
Does the GB700 Unit 1 post need citations?
Yes, and at doctoral level the form of the citation is part of the argument. A study named by its authors, year and journal can be checked; one named by a news headline cannot. Most sections expect at least a couple of scholarly sources even in an opening post, and a precise citation to the claim being tested counts as one.
Is a practitioner argument wrong?
No. It answers a different question for a different reader: what should we do now, given what we know? A scholarly argument asks how much is known and how far it applies. Doctoral programs in business ask candidates to hold both, which is why the strongest posts treat the practitioner version with respect before showing what it cannot carry.
Can the post use a claim from my own workplace?
It usually works well, because the gap between what a workplace memo asserts and what the literature supports is easy to see when the memo is familiar. Remove anything confidential and describe the organization generally. The claim should be one real sources address, so the post can test it against published evidence rather than opinion.
Where can I find a free GB700 Unit 1 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB700 Unit 1 discussion post that tests a composite bank executive's claim about tuition benefits and turnover against three doctoral tests, with a rewritten claim and a reply.
Why does a vendor's participant comparison not prove the program works?
Employees who choose to enroll may already be the ones planning to stay. Comparing participants with non-participants shows a difference but cannot show the program caused it.