<p>@st2 PTripp is saying wise things. Also, “this information” is not even true information. If your application isn’t going to improve in the extra months, you should probably apply early (and, if an in-state college has non-binding early admissions, that, too).</p>
<p>As for the nontruthiness of the information, here are some of the ways. Nobody knows how Harvard’s EA this year is going to play out (so OP’s certainty is one form of a lie), but, to be precise, here’s a short list of the ways it violates common sense.
-Harvard is going to reject qualified candidates it might accept later. As HParent says, this ain’t a game. Any strategizing about whether to apply early or late is entirely about your peace of mind, and whether you need a couple extra months to do your application.
—If your application will be significantly better on January 1 (except the resume portion), hold off. If you anticipate major awards, send them a supplement to your resume saying so. It’s common practice and completely acceptable.
—As for your peace of mind, if you’d rather hear an acceptance from Georgia Tech (assuming that’s out of state for you) early than risk being deferred to the regular round to have the anxiety of dealing with two bouts of admissions decisions, you shouldn’t apply early. If you’d rather have some decision early, apply early and hope for the best.
—If you are rejected early, you would have been rejected regular.
—If you are accepted early, you would have been accepted regular.
—If they aren’t certain about your application, they will defer you.
------They are aware of the effect OP cites where they’re more interested in the first classics applicant than the twentieth, and take it into account, and so try very hard eliminate the psychological effect from having an effect on decisions.
-The “reserved” categories are these, according to OP: athletes, the rich/legacies, and very qualified applicants.
—You’re not an athlete. They’ll be competing in a separate pool from you no matter when you apply. You’re not going out for the spots they will get, and so they’ll have no effect on you. They will not increase your chances of rejection.
—The legacies/rich people etc. are often very qualified candidates, because they’ve had more opportunities to take advantage of. It is less political than “they take legacies at three times the rate of the average applicant!!!” sounds. Of course they do. The “average” candidate includes a lot of perfectly good but perfectly unexceptional candidates, forming that 93% rejection rate.
—“Very qualified candidates”: you may be one of these! Even if you don’t see it, you may have that spark they’re looking for. 
If you don’t, it’s also not a comment on your acceptability for admissions to Yale or whatever other equally selective schools you’re applying to regular, given their admittance rate. If you get deferred, you may still be admitted, too, of course. But it’s not like they accept a lot of candidates who aren’t in this category in any round. (Also: it’s not just for superhuman candidates, just for very good ones.) And if you get rejected in the end, you and a bunch of other awesome students and awesome human beings also got rejected, so you’ll be in good company and go on to have just as good a life (and in all likelihood as good a college experience) as if you’d attended this school.</p>
<p>Good luck! Do what seems best, but don’t let the OP of this thread influence you.</p>