<p>All the stats point to early decision or action greatly improving chances (usually more than doubling), but is this because of the early action, or because those who do early action are just that much more qualified than the regular applicants?</p>
<p>Also, is the acceptance rate a great amount higher for early DECISION versus early action? Thanks for the input!</p>
<p>It’s not that they are much more qualified at many schools, it’s that the majority getting in are the recruited athletes, legacies, staff kids, development candidates and other hooked candidates who need to apply ED/EA to take full advantage of their hook.</p>
<p>I got the best finaid deal by applying ED. Many other int’l students with greater stats were rejected in RD. So surely it helps.</p>
<p>Might as well add that some colleges like Beliot want their scholarship applicants to apply EA, to avail lesser competition.</p>
<p>Also, am I wrong in thinking that applying EA essentially gives you two chances at colleges? EA and RD right?</p>
<p>No, if you’re rejected in that round it’s over. Many colleges just defer most of the ED/EA applicants as a soft denial, but they have little chance to get in RD.</p>
<p>bump for more answers!</p>
<p>There’s no way to know if ED or EA actually helps in general, because schools typically don’t publish the broken-out stats of early vs. regular applicants or matriculants. However, schools that consider fit important (many? most?) know that some (many? most?) ED applicants consider themselves to be a good fit for the school, which would seem to give the average ED applicant some advantage.</p>