@goldencub I did specify that, in cases in which applications are viewed independently from the rest of the application pool, it is reasonable to believe that expectations which specific students could not meet at their college would not be held against them. I am not skeptical of the statements that the UCs make rather the way that statement is interpreted and the claim that results.
Take employment for example. Assuming that all applicants in this scenario are educated enough to hold the position, it is unreasonable to hold lack of work experience against a twenty year old applicant; however, that does not mean that they are truly going to be seen as equal to a thirty year old applicant, who holds ten more years of work experience. There is a difference between something not being against an applicant and an applicant being seen as equal to a potential competitor. There are applicants every year who are waitlisted or receive rejections for no other reason than the fact that another applicant submitted an application that was slightly more favorable.
If an admissions officer reads an application that impresses them thoroughly, then it would be unlikely for them to be dissuaded by the applicant did not finish the prereqs or didn’t create the cure for cancer as a EC. If you are, however, an applicant who is going to be weighed alongside the rest of the application pool, the idea that lacking in any area, regardless of whether it might not be your fault, could never be result in applicants receiving a spot over you because the process is completely fair seems rather idealistic.