> Extracurriculars are supposed to show that the student is well-rounded and driven - attributes that have been shown to be positively correlated with success in college and careers.

If extracurriculars are so important then why doesn't colleges require them to graduate? Why is their admission criteria so different from their graduation criteria? They ought to look similar.

If grades are enough to graduate they obviously don't value other things and therefore should just look at grades of incoming students. If however grades aren't enough to say that a person is a good individual then why do they choose to graduate unbalanced people who only got good grades but suck at extracurriculars? Don't they care about their output at all?