Honestly, I think that the highly selective colleges want what they want, and they dress that idea up to make it politically palatable while doing what they like behind the scenes. This is my way of saying that I think the whole process is a farce. Following from that idea, I see little value in discussing "what colleges want" without acknowledging that admissions practices may be very different when the wind changes direction in 18 months. Not to mention how toxic they are.
My understanding is admissions are transparent and merit-based in what I'd call a wobbly way (eg accepted applicants from different ethnic groups have different average SAT scores, meaning that the goal posts move for different groups). This kind of thing creates an arms race to overcome the higher hurdles.
A case in point is that admissions committees look for "research scientists" in the applicant pool. There is no such thing as a 17-year-old research scientist unless s/he has already finished a postdoc (in which case, there's no need to apply to Yale undergrad). But we have a fantasy that the Intel science competition turns kids into researchers. It doesn't. It's just a start on a long road.
I'm not saying that teenagers don't dream up amazing ideas. I'm saying that going from there to being a research scientist is a very big leap, and I'm skeptical that a teenager could get there while also amassing credits for 3 years of social studies and PE and English and so on.
The expectations to be "pointy" are just as cruel as the "well-rounded" expectation that has children signing up for 20 weekly activity hours on top of school and study time. And it's just as much a lie: I don't believe that the vast majority of those kids are going to Debate club on MW and Fundraising club on TR while also running track and starting a nonprofit.
