I always thought that publications held more bearing than that.... maybe
LizzyM or another adcom can clarify?
Drop LizzyM with a message linking to this thread, I would be interested in her food for thought on this topic, particularly most post regarding upper/mid/lower tiers and their focus on the 'success' of research. I currently have two summers of full-time research with several presentations (poster and lecture) but no publications.
Yeah.... I agree with you here. Perhaps it isn't based on the tier, but on the amount of funding is allocated to research within a school.
For the most part, the upper tier schools receive much more research funding. This is a fair generalization that I made in describing the topic at hand.
I didn't take it personally. You never know... im sure once in a blue moon a very talented undergraduate researcher comes along and really does do the amount of work and background studying to produce a great publication. But I also think that there are in fact a lot of douchebag premeds who inflate their application so much that it pops in front of adcoms.
You are correct, but more often than not this isn't true. I know of students with publications that did nothing but wash dishes and take a PhD student's graphs and make them grayscale for the paper. They got a middle-author publication. She's currently taking a year off after an unsuccessful cycle.
Just make sure to remain level headed, and instead of focusing on the research findings itself, focus on what you've learned, and how it motivates you to become a physician. That's what they want to know. However, if a committee member has experience in the field and presses you for a depth of information regarding the publication, then it would be okay to discuss findings without sounding pretentious.
The 'gunner' in that one was strong. Never did find out how his cycle ended up.
And is a 31 and 3.8 really better than a 30, 3.7, and a publication in nature?
Now you're altering numbers on me, namely the GPA. Applicants below a 3.5 GPA tend to have very rough application cycles, even when their MCAT looks okay. Additionally, a large disparity between MCAT and GPA can even be a red flag (Did the student not work hard in school? Did the student work so hard they did well in undergrad, but they weren't competent enough for the rigor of the MCAT?).
Now, to simplify, the barrier to admissions often comes around the 28 mark for MCAT and a 3.5 for GPA. Clearly, students get in with below these stats. However, cycles tend to go
much more smoothly (or have done so in the past) when applicants score higher than a 30 on their MCAT and have higher than a 3.5 GPA.
In your example of a 31 MCAT and a 3.8 GPA versus a 30 MCAT and a 3.7 GPA with a pub in
Nature, you're now comparing two
competitive applicants (by my definition). In this case, the publication may push the slightly lower-stat applicant over the other, but this will be decided mostly by the applicant as a whole, the publication will still not decide it on its own.
Edit: Let me note, the vast majority of posts here are from other applicants, do your best to weed out good, biased and awful advice. I, along with you, am not an expert on the application process, but with logic and some reliable information, you can make wise decisions and bolster you application for a successful season. I do my best to give appropriate advice, but even so I am not unbiased nor am I qualified to give representative information regarding the ordeal.