Does early decision have any advantages over early action? If not, why is it there?! If both are the same and both are available, why would anyone choose to bind themselves and be restricted to that one college when they can enjoy the benefits of early application without being bound (using early action)?
Schools offer both EA and ED are very uncommon. In most cases, you don’t have the choice.
Generally, Early Decision has a better admission rate, because the university knows that students who do ED are very unlikely to pull out (mostly for financial reasons). Universities like it because they can protect their yield, and students like it because it gets them a better chance.
Early decision can have admit rates over 30% at schools that have sub-10 overall rates (keeping mind that many of the early admits are legacies, athletes, or have some other hook).
@Shomax: Unfortunately, it’s clear that you’re viewing this question entirely from the applicants’ perspectives, not from the institutions’. That’s a significant mistake, because the universities’ policies fundamentally – and appropriately – exist to help the schools.
ED provides LACs and universities with an applicant pool that are so intent on attending X that they willingly commit to go there, if admitted. Moreover, almost all ED applicants are near-certain the applicable financial arrangements are viable. In addition, those ED candidates who are not accepted, but might be admissions-competitive, can be deferred to RD. In sum, this is a win-win-win for the schools.
However, It is also a win-win for the ED applicant because: (a) his probability of admission is marginally improved and (b) he can spend the next four months enjoying his senior year, not plagued by the hassles and the uncertainty of RD decisions, of potential waitlists, and of making a final selection in late-April or May.
As @TopTier said, consider the school’s perspective. A highly selective LAC can’t effectively do unrestricted early action because it would be too difficult to control the size of the admitted class. For example, if the target class is 400, binding ED helps the institution because it goes into the RD round already knowing that about 1/3 of the class is accounted for.
This is true for an ED applicant who is applying ED to a school which is his/her clear first choice, and who is confident of the affordability. That does not describe the many posters who show up here asking “what ED school should I apply to?”.
@ucbalumnus: I am sure we both agree that no one should proffer an ED application, unless: (a) s/he is entirely certain the institution is the #1 – no doubts or equitation – choice and (b) the finances are viable (at least at the time the application is submitted). Given that agreement, why are we concerned with potential ED applicants who FOOLISHLY violate these fundamental and clearly understood strictures? Decisions have consequences, accountability is a life-cornerstone, and if an individual does something that is foolhardy, he merits the outcome(s).
Unfortunately, it seems that the penalty consequences that may be applied to the applicant who backs out of an ED admission are limited or nonexistent. Some ED schools are said to take revenge on the high school by auto-rejecting future applicants, but that is not an effective deterrent against an unethical student who will not see the penalty. So the life-lesson about accountability with respect to ED may not actually be effective.
@ucbalumnus: I agree. However, I wasn’t discussing the penalties and/or accountability the schools might impose on ED miscreants (the institutions fully know that there is very little they really can do to enforce their policies, they nevertheless opt to permit ED applications, so they deserve little consideration). Rather, I was focusing on our concern for (to use your phrase) “the many posters who show up asking ‘what ED school should I apply to?’.” It is their responsibility to do the “basic homework” and to understand the fundamentals fully. If they fail to do so, why do we assist them?