Assuming you are serious and not just amusing yourself with all this, there are two areas in particular where you appear to have as fixed “knowns” things that are in fact not true. That is why you are being so argumentative and bewildered by what you are getting as feedback. If you are willing to open your mind to the possibility that many of us have been involved in this area for years and know what we are talking about, maybe you can then also accept why you are approaching this from what most of us would consider the wrong perspective.
The first thing you have as an incorrect premise is the 2400 SAT and its value. It’s a rare achievement, for sure. But, and this is a big but, when schools like Harvard say they consider all SAT scores between 2200-2400 as equivalent, they mean it. I know this is disappointing for you at some level given your score, but you have to get over that and quit denying it as if it isn’t true. The statistics everyone have thrown at you show that it clearly is true. So why do schools look at things beyond test scores and GPA when considering admission? That brings me to point #2 of where you seem to be off track.
You have stated several times (and I am paraphrasing of course) that you don’t understand why schools would look at EC’s and other activities and talents when they are supposed to be academic enterprises. They are, indeed, primarily academic institutions, but certainly not exclusively so. Universities are communities that require a variety of “food sources” to thrive. This balanced diet includes not just some of the smartest people in the world, but also talented artists of many stripes, people that have already demonstrated the kind of character that shows a willingness to apply their intelligence and talent to the betterment of their community and the world, people that excel in athletics, and some people that just are different, maybe even edgy. It is this kind of balance that creates a thriving, progressive community, rather than the quite sterile community that would more likely result if the only criteria revolved around dry statistics.
Now you are free to feel that this is wrong on their part, although I cannot imagine why you would. But even if you do, it doesn’t change the fact (and it is a fact) that this is the way it is. And while I didn’t mention it as one of your two main false assumptions, you are also on the wrong track when it comes to prestige, quality, etc. It would take far too long to get into here, and there are many threads about it already, but the USA is blessed with dozens, even a few hundred fine schools that provide first rate undergraduate educations that prepare students for completely successful careers in anything they choose. I won’t argue that Harvard, Yale, Princeton and a few others are not much more famous, but don’t confuse fame with opportunity for your future. A look at the undergraduate institutions of the most successful CEO’s, artists, politicians, charitable foundation founders, doctors, lawyers, etc. will show you that they are often from a wide range of “no-name” schools.
Anyway, try and be a bit less combative and see if you cannot accept that others really do know things. BTW, the whole Einstein did/didn’t teach at Princeton is a technicality. You are both right. He was officially not a tenured prof at the university, but certainly he taught Princeton students sometimes and he is generally associated with the school. It is a pointless argument and not a great reason to pick a school. It would make more sense if there was a current prof you admired, but even then that is more of a grad school reason to pick a school. It makes little difference at the undergrad level.