I can't agree with this enough! I've been accepted to several of my top choices, and I really think that being a non-traditional student (late twenties; decade of post-bach research, management, and life experience; etc.) made a huge difference in terms of defining my research focus, and honing those skills (field, statistical, and otherwise) that best inform that focus. I also think time away from academia increased my confidence and allowed me to develop skills that aren't really attended to in undergrad, such as managing a team, budgeting, and networking across different fields/disciplines. Sure, you can head a club---and that's great---but the real-world impact may be negligible. That time also helped me discern what I really wanted from a program, as opposed to just hoping that someone would pick me. I only applied to top-tier programs because I wanted all of the attributes that those schools could offer: Research 1 institutions, dedicated research dollars, multiple profs in different fields studying things I am incredibly interested in, and the opportunity to gain international exposure. I'm not sure if I would possess the same level of confidence/awareness if I were a traditional student.
I also can't stress enough the importance of contacting POIs long before the start of the application season in which you'll be applying. You'll be able to discuss their current/future work, your interests, and learn more about the program when they're (slightly) less stressed re: applications. All things being equal, I would argue that fit/experience/recommendations far outweigh more technical factors, such as GRE/GPA. I think it's really important to keep in mind that this is a job interview, more or less. You're really not applying to be a student, but to advance the interests/reputation of the school's brand, your advisors' work, and the contribution of your own work as you succeed in the field.
Very best of luck!