<p>I looked at Columbia admission statistics, and it's a significant jump from around 9% general admission to 24% ED admission.</p>
<p>Is this just because people that apply ED are generally more motivated, ambitious etc. and therefore just tend to be better candidates (not to mention there are less of them) and are thus accepted more, or will the universities actually give preference to one of two of the same two candidates if one applied ED?</p>
<p>Obviously when I say ED I only mean top, prestigious schools.</p>
<p>The general consensus is that ED provides a boost roughly equivalent to 100 points on the SAT, while EA programs provide a similar, if smaller boost. The only school where no statistically significant advantage apparently exists is MIT (which, iirc, makes a point of controlling their admissions rates and statistics so no such advantage exists).</p>
<p>I feel like for ED they have much more highly qualified applicants, though…</p>
<p>many schools expressly say on their admission websites that there is no advantage to applying ed</p>
<p>like you said, probably stronger candidates plus a lot of the recruited athletes</p>
<p>The fact that the average applicant is stronger does influence the stats, but as I mentioned earlier some fairly rigorous analysis has substantiated the benefit to applying ED.</p>
<p>See this book: [Amazon.com:</a> The Early Admissions Game: Joining the Elite (9780674016200): Christopher Avery, Andrew Fairbanks, Richard Zeckhauser: Books](<a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Early-Admissions-Game-Joining-Elite/dp/0674016203/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310444885&sr=1-1]Amazon.com:”>http://www.amazon.com/Early-Admissions-Game-Joining-Elite/dp/0674016203/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310444885&sr=1-1)</p>
<p>Based upon a study done by a pair of Harvard econ professors and a admissions director.</p>