<p>I have been reading that Early (ED or EA) applicants have better chances. Stats show that the admit rates are higher than regular pool for most schools.</p>
<p>Is there truth into it, or are the Early applicants were better students/fits to start with. i.e., if there was no Early application, would the same people be admitted, or did those who applied early, really improved their chances?</p>
<p>It is in the college’s interest to use the ED process to lock in the students that it most wants to attend; that would include recruited athletes and other students with unique talents that are an asset to the college; full-pay students; students who are at the upper end of the applicant pool; and students who meet other institutional goals, such as increasing geographic or ethnic diversity, or building up strength in particular academic departments. </p>
<p>It is NOT in the college’s interest to allow the ED process to tie up space with marginal students when there are likely to be better qualified students applying in the RD round – so if you look at ED from the perspective of what benefits the college admissions system, it will give you a sense of whether it will benefit the individual student.</p>
<p>Iit’s possible more of the EA applicants are of better quality, or more likely, the RD pool has more of the slackers or kids who didn’t get it together or just weren’t sure what they wanted.</p>
<p>I have read that schools urge candidates who know what they want to apply early and get the scholarships before they run out. Some schools may make all the finaid decisions in a group, but some do make scholarship offers in the acceptance letter. So the earlier the better.</p>