IMO the UCs shouldn’t be in the business of satisfying prestige starved parents who derisively view access to an affordable education at at top 100 University as “nothing of value.”
It is hard to fathom the absurdity of this discussion. When 80% of the total enrollment from certain schools are accepted to a UCs, dozens of them to UCLA and Berkeley, and parents are still complaining? It is hard to blame the UCs.
As an extension to this argument, so many angry parents of rejected student will post on Official UC Campus threads that their kids have this and that SAT (usually is 1500+) score but rejected from UCLA or UCB.
Never mind the fact that UC has been test blind for some time and any time spent on test scores are wasted time (for the purpose of UC applications) that can be used to do something more “interesting.” But the same parents will argue their kids are more deserving because of the high test score.
This goes into your argument about the criteria are clear. People just choose to ignore them.
My son told me that during his senior year admissions season, a couple of Merced students from his high school who had taken advantage of ELC came to visit and meet with seniors to tell them about the opportunities at Merced (and to give them a current student’s view of pros and cons). It absolutely seems to be a respected option at our high school.
(Although I’m not sure if students at our Northern CA high school would feel the same way if offered a Riverside ELC spot… simply because of its Southern CA location… that’s a separate question 
)
We were absolutely thrilled with what we saw at UC Merced and UC Riverside. We would have been over the moon had our daughter committed to either of those schools.
Hey now. No need to get nasty.
One irony is that if prospective families are not learning about the criteria as currently defined, is there any confidence that they would suddenly start doing their homework if the criteria became a more specific formula? 
It seems some California parents want to retain what they see as the current academic prestige of UCLA while admitting students on heavily nonacademic criteria. Any criteria is fine with me, but accept the consequences- maybe the two flagships will have fewer academically talented students ( tho deemed " top" in other ways) under the 13 criteria, and its standing may reflect that. Is that so bad?
UT will never be one of the nation’s top undergrad school due to its admission criteria; it still fulfills its mission and offers a quality education. Maybe the same will happen to UCLA in another few cycles. It can be " top" since they seem to like that word, for things other than necessarily the academic strength of its students. Good students, quality education, affordable. Just like Riverside or any of the others.
The interesting thing to me about your comments is that UCLA admission, specifically, is much more stats based than UCB, which is notoriously the most holistic UC campus (and has been that way for a long time as far as I know).
Since I am not from Cali, I used them interchangeably. Feel free to correct.
These two are sort of opposites in terms of admissions.
UCLA really loves high stat students (that is, students with extremely high uncapped weighted GPA indicating max rigor, and typically 4.0 unweighted).
UCB is very holistic, and every year we hear about some students who are accepted to UCB and no other UC campus. Regents (honors) selection at UCB also seems to be much more related to leadership qualities (as expressed in essays and activities) rather than stats.
(If you ever do want to blend in more with CA parents on these boards, dropping the term “Cali” might help; although I’ve wondered if that is precisely why you use the term 
)
I think that UCM is a fine school however the single digit yields at UCM would indicate that ELC isn’t seen as having the value that you are proposing.
At this point it is time to call it a thread for me. I have zero skin in this game with no children who have applied or will apply to a UC for undergraduate education. There are other options which are a better fit for them and the UCs were never really considered. I only engaged in the conversation because there are others whose feelings differ very strongly from some on this thread and whose POV I was trying to articulate.
So until the next debate…
My Cali daughter calls it Cali. Maybe its generational?
Drop the word “cali”?
I have lived in California? for over 30 years and have never heard that this is an unpreffered way to refer to California. but I just saw this somewhere else as well.
I am getting old. Psyche
Huh! Well, maybe there’s a Northern CA / Southern CA thing going on, then, or some other factor. It looks extremely weird and grating to me (born and raised in CA).
Im goin back to Cali Cali Cali
I’ll check with the under 25 crowd
As an UCLA Alum, I must point out what made UCLA great is exactly because it is a pioneer in admitting students who were at the time deemed “less academically talented” who then went on to change the world. The whole premise of what constitutes academic talent is debatable. But to say UCLA is doing anything inconsistent with its core value will not be correct.
I don’t think I proposed a specific value. I was arguing against the specific value of “nothing”, which is the same as zero value.
Never claimed it was. But its current undergrad ranking ( for those who care about USNWR) is based more on the academic strength of its enrolled students than the career progress of its alumni.
Many don’t care about ranking. Maybe state schools shouldnt.