Obviously an application can not be reduced down to one element of it, but just for kicks, please post what you believe to be the single most critical factor in admissions (besides SAT, GPA).
Cheers!
^ and this makes “please post what you believe” irrelevant.
I guess it would be really insulting for you if colleges just put the hard work you have produced during the last three years at the bottom of the list, right?
Differentiation.
I of course agree with the above that the transcript is numero uno. But then the LORs loom very large, especially at a selective school where there will be a mountain of sterling transcripts. The LORs separate the grade grubbers and the self-obsessed from those who truly excel and lead through consideration for others, the classes, teachers, and for the school. I have read LORs that make it clear that the applicant has character, curiosity, and is an interesting kid. I have seen others that pretty much underline that the kid is a high performer. Which do you think the selective school prefers?
What the school needs specifically.
I don’t think we can isolate one factor and declare it the be all end all. (Though I understand that isn’t what you are saying). I personally feel that the most critical factor is what the college is searching for at that time. For instance, even if you have stellar scores, great grades and recs, and are the captain of the chess team. They might have too many chess players already and might be looking for a tuba player instead.
But remember that colleges are **academic **institutions, and colleges are (usually) four years long just like high schools are, so despite some grade inflation and easiness of some classes, colleges really have a few options other than the transcript to predict your performance. A number of colleges (like Cornell, MIT) require SAT Subject Tests in addition to transcripts because the former is uniform, yet that bars many students who have the potential to do just as great from applying.
Donating a building
Being an academically qualified recruited athlete.
What about just a really good athlete… Maybe not recruited specifically? Varsity 4 years?
Not significant.
^Agree. If you aren’t good enough for to play on a varsity team for a college, it become a regular extra curricular, but not a compelling reason to admit you.
Look at it this way, there are probably 15-25,000 HS teams in your sport. You were on one them.
@BrownParent, @intparent, and @Falcon1 understand my point. If you’re a recruited athlete that means, by definition, that you possess an attribute that the college deems important. Combine that with strong academic qualifications and you’re chances of acceptance are very high.
It isn’t that they’re looking for an athletic student body; they’re looking for student/athletes that can help them win championships.
@sherpa I think we were all agreeing with what you just said.
I do not agree with that. A committed athlete is no more likely to succeed and thrive at a top school than a kid who made a deep commitment and achieved a lot in debate, quiz bowl, chess, music, volunteer activities, science competitions. or other activities. There is no edge for an athlete who is not at an elite level.
I know some students are fed the line that somehow athletics are the best activities because… teamwork, hard work, dedication. Guess what? A lot of those other activities require the same thing. In fact. I would argue that because these are academic institutions, that activities that hone and display more academic type skills are more valuable in admissions than athletics. If I can take a kid who got to the national level in a science competition vs one whose sports team made it to a national level in competition, I’m taking the science kid who may go on to a Nobel someday, or the debater whose oration skills will hopefully raise the level of debate in he classroom.
I think sports are a perfectly solid EC. But they have no special level of status as an EC over other activities if the student isn’t good enough to be recruited.
Ah… Just re-read. Got it, never mind 
@Falcon1 - I now realize that my post #14 could be interpreted as disagreeing with you and the other two posters I mentioned when, in fact, I meant to convey that I was agreeing with all of you, and that you all understood my point, not that you didn’t.
I meant “Posters A, B, and C, above, understood my point”, as opposed to a command to you to “understand my point”.
i hope that makes sense and clears things up.
Oh, got it!