<p>
Every analysis I’ve ever seen came to a different conclusion. It’s true that at selective schools, the ED/EA applicant pool is stronger than the regular pool. However, after discounting differences in SAT scores, GPA, demographic, course schedule, and just about anything else you could think of; there is still a significant difference in the admit rate between ED and RD at most top schools. </p>
<p>For example, the ridiculously detailed study at <a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/EarlyAdmissions.pdf[/url]”>http://www.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Papers/EarlyAdmissions.pdf</a> (co-authored by Stanford professor) found a 17-20% increase in chance of admission for non-commit early action after accounting for differences in strength of the applicant pool and a 31-37% increase for single choice early decision. These numbers were calculated by averaging across 30 schools, including all of the top schools gravitas2 listed. Note that the numbers gravitas2 posted show the SCEA rate of admission was 2 to 3x higher, far more than 17-20% or 31-37%, implying that the vast majority of the difference in admission rate is due to a stronger applicant pool. The remaining 30+% difference is still quite significant, but not huge. It would be like a 5% admit rate on RD vs a 6.5% admit rate on SCEA. As collegedad2013 touched on, if something happens to make your application stronger later on in your senior year, then it could have far more impact than the difference in admission rates for SCEA discussed above.</p>