1. Perhaps those who set college admission standards are bringing anti-captialist values to the table, and one way to try to filter for compatibility is to select those who engage in activities “in service to society” or in unpaid work rather than gainful employment.

2. While I hate to even give any credence to class warfare of any kind, doesn’t it seem at least possible that, as a form of conspicuous consumption, it’s a way of selecting for those who are members of the “correct” socio-economic stratum? ie. those who can easily afford to give away their labor for free

Of course, it could also be something else entirely or perhaps a combination of both of these and something else, or, as seems likely, differing factors for different decision makers.

It shows that your schools are in a sorry state, if grades are not more important than the activities during free time!

I also think that todays schools are not good for boys at all, because they are streamlined of female learning abilities rather than men. I have come to see this in drop out rates and in my own recent experience in German Gymnasium (High School + first year college). They just can’t motivate boys with their social approach to teaching.
Perhaps home schooling and personal teachers are a better way to cope with this problem.