It’s really not, though every year this topic will get a lot of good discussion in this thread. I live here (just north of campus), have 3 kids in public schools including the HS that’s in the area of UCB, and they/we walk and take public transit everywhere. It’s a beautiful campus very close to wilderness and with lovely views, surrounded by all kinds of neighborhoods. I won’t repeat all that @worriedmomucb already explained perfectly except to agree with all of that. It’s a small city next to larger cities, and it has city issues like all cities do, and you just keep your wits about you like you would in any urban environment, especially as it relates to property crime. Don’t leave your laptop unattended in a cafe. Don’t bring your fanciest, best bike to campus. Have situational awareness and you are fine. It’s a wonderful place to live and raise a family (and go to school!), in my opinion. 
While this is absolutely an excellent resource, I have to say I find it a bit funny how they present crime stats and procedures juxtaposed with pictures of smiling students 
This student is happy because there’s a clear procedure to follow in the event of stalking.
Just FYI. Page 97 of this 2022 Clery report has 2019-2021 crime stats for Cal.
You can google “Clery Act” on just about any school and you can find their annual safety/crime reports.
Son was accepted to all COE at the 7 UC’s he applied to. Was not interested in UCM or UC Riverside so didn’t apply to them.
Did any international applicants receive an LOR request?
no, they don’t distribute students like that. My oldest son got into all the UCs he applied to for engineering/cs, regents at most (not Cal, though). Second son got into all the UCs that he applied to, also (not engineering).
Not sure. There might have been someone who did. But it seems that mainly domestic applicants got the request.
Not UCB-specific, but interesting to those of us applying in state:
This quote makes me laugh.
"Leaman said UC campuses could benefit from finding new ways to identify qualified students and admitting them. "
Find qualified students??? Really, they get 100,000+ applicants and they say the need to find qualified applicants. They have them they just are making excuses now.
Yes, as someone in the article even points out - they are turning away qualified students while claiming to be unable to meet enrollment targets. But then it comes down to individual campuses - in the UCB case, housing is probably a chief issue limiting enrollment. Until they solve that, they can’t really expand much. And maybe there are other issues, such as wanting to admit a higher number of first gen and not getting enough of those specific students, etc.
I get that. But in UCB situation, they can just reduce the OOS now and replace those numbers with instate and they will then start meeting their agreement.
What they are doing is making excuses and not willing to drop their oos because they bring in more $$$. They don’t want to let go of that money.
OOS definitely require housing, not all in state will.
On last years thread I joked that there should be a box in the application where an instate parent can indicate willingness to pay OOS fees 
The real solution is to grow enrollment and not get into the zero sum game of shuffling seats from OOS to Instate. I think UCB and UCLA are already limited to a specific max % for OOS.
Hey, my personal preferred solution is taking more local students, so I’m all for that. But I may be a little biased
Similarly, there should be a box for in state students willing to live at home and commute.
Well, and the other piece here I wonder about is the 9% ELC. Right now, they are offered only UC Merced. Many have no interest in going there. Perhaps another solution being looked at is how to spread that out a bit between more than one campus. That would also likely lead to higher enrollment of qualified in state students.
Your right about UCB,UCLA and UCSD needing to limit the max % of OOS which I read somewhere recently they haven’t met yet either. They are slowly reducing it.
Which again is an easy swap. Unless behind the promise of the state to compensate the difference of enrollment for OOS, is a clause to do it incrementality to offset the cost the state will incur from it overtime.
Not as simple as reducing OOS students and International students. The global ranking of universities considers highly those universities that have well represented groups of students from countries and states. UCB is prestigious because of that. One should be careful what to ask for. If UCB reduces substantially and quickly OOS and international, UCB ranking will fall thereby making it unappealing for the very same IS students who want to get in by reducing OOS and International. Other top state schools (UM, UVA) and private colleges will improve their ranking reducing the demand for UCB and UCLA. It is a connected ecosystem. Politicians know it but will keep saying what the voters want to hear. Of course Tuition is another factor which is substantially higher for OOS students.
This is very true. As the parent of a current CA HS senior applying to UCs, I hope that the most selective schools will admit a few more in-state students. But I’m also a parent of a current ULCA second-year, and he’s adamantly against the system reducing the number of OOS and Int’l students because they add value and diversity and contribute to the prestige of his school (rankings and otherwise) – and I totally get that. It’s a “tread carefully” situation either way, for sure.
That said, I won’t be mad if UCB and other UCs admit a few more highly qualified CA kids this year! 
One way to thread the needle might be to increase IS admits to high-demand majors while keeping the top-line composition the same as before. Most of the frustration is really about the availability of spots for CS, DS and other ultra competitive majors.
Well then the school will be pretty much unattractive for OOS.