The value of EC’s are consistently overrated by posters on this site. I suspect some of this comes from a hope of many that a long list of EC’s will make up for less than optimal objective stat’s. Every highly selective school lists the high school transcript (grades plus course rigor) as the most important component of their evaluation process. Of the subjectives, the essays and the LoR’s carry much more weight than the EC’s. As far as EC’s are concerned, quality not quantity matters. Do the EC’s indicate desirable characteristics such as persistence, commitment, leadership, an ability to get things done. Do they tie in to the essay and LoR’s to give a complete and consistent picture of who the applicant is? @gibby has made numerous post right on point as to what highly selective colleges look for, including the topic of EC’s.
I also believe that the value of ED and especially EA is overrated. Yes the acceptance rate of ED and EC are higher than RD rates, but after you back out athletic recruits, the gap is much less significant. On top of that, we can also safely assume applicants in the ED/EA pools are going to be stronger than the RD pool (see Harvard quote below). There is probably merit that ED gives some real boost because of yield protection and higher predictability of class size and makeup. I would take the colleges at their word that EA confers no advantages, direct quote from the Harvard website:
“Harvard does not offer an advantage to students who apply early. Higher Early Action acceptance rates reflect the remarkable strength of Early Action pools. For any individual student, the final decision will be the same whether the student applies Early Action or Regular Decision.”