<p>EA (SCEA) does in practice mean the same thing as ED in the sense that well informed kids understand that it gives them a boost in admissions, while less affluent applicants take schools and authority figures at their word when they say it does not affect admissions decision and that it is about fit.</p>
<p>For the less affluent, access to information with respect to ED and EA programs are lacking, or like many I've encountered, find out too late about the early options and figure they have no chance during the regular rounds (since with a little digging, you can find the ED or EA rates in print media).</p>
<p>Also, EA schools outside the top ones do not often gurentee to meet need, so if you apply to a binding EA program (SCEA) and don't get in, you've closed the door on other EA applications that do not limit college choice and, unfortunately, any gurentee of financial aid being met--since preferencial packaging seems to have become more of a marketing tool as of late. There are different permutations of EA programs, while the ED program is more clearcut.</p>
<p>There are two EA programs (non-binding/unlimited applications, and non-binding/single choice) and 1 ED program. Outside the top schools' SCEA programs, there are only a handful of others (UNC included) that use EA and can meet financial need. Effectively, the SCEA program limits low-income kids who do not know how to play the admissions game, while making financial resources more difficult to get from schools that do not gurentee to meet need. Although kids are encouraged to contact each school for specific policies about early admissions (SCEA/EA/ED) programs available to them, few parents and kids can keep it all straight unless they are plugged in to the admissions process by speaking with private counselors, other parents, or adcoms. Thus, it is less likely for a first-generation, lower-income, college bound kid to get the info, tech issues not withstanding.</p>
<p>So, I applaud Harvard.</p>