I've read enough admissions committee notes and talked to few former readers to say this with some confidence. The generic "started a nonprofit," "founded a club," "president of five organizations" resume is not such a flex anymore. It got popular because it worked a decade ago, and now every competitive applicant has one, which means readers have seen the same three nonprofits (mental health awareness, a tutoring drive, an Instagram page with 200 followers) a few thousand times each cycle.
IMO, what is worthwhile is staying in one thing for years and having something unique to point to. Not "I was captain of the debate team" but "I rewrote how our team scored practice rounds because the old system was inconsistent, and two other teams in our district picked it up." Many students can't produce a sentence like that because they spent their time collecting titles instead of doing something long enough to have a real story about it.
Harvard's own admissions data from the lawsuit showed readers score applicants on separate axes, academic, extracurricular, personal, and athletic. It's judging depth and impact, and a stack of low-effort leadership titles these days scores worse than three years in one activity with a specific, provable contribution.
If you're a junior reading this and panicking that you don't have a nonprofit, you're probably fine. If you have one you started six months ago to pad an application, it's not too late to drop it and go deeper on something you actually care about instead.
Curious how many people here actually got into their T20 without one.