<p>That’s a great question, but I think the answer is found outside the admissions office.</p>
<p>I’ve spoken to a lot of pre-1999 alumni who seem to all agree on a few things: Chicago has always been a marvelous and somewhat unusual school, but it wasn’t always appealing to the ideal crowd. </p>
<p>Who is the ideal Chicago student? I would say it’s somebody who is fiercely intellectual (to maintain the University’s image), who is intellectually capable enough to able to balance work and play (and able to contribute to a sense of social life, student life, school spirit), somebody who can make waves and a name for themselves and for the prestige of the school (future Rhodes Scholars, Supreme Court justices, Tucker Max-- have you ever noticed that besides its endowment, the most impressive thing about Harvard is its list of alumni?) and, somebody who was happy with the experience (or is just generally a happy person) and will want to donate to the alma mater.</p>
<p>Who is not to say that the ideal Chicago student is not also the idea Columbia student, ideal Brown student, etc? What’s going to bring the ideal Chicago student into Chicago if Columbia and Brown seem to offer better package deals? I can think of a few people I know who were thinking about Chicago but persuaded to matriculate elsewhere. </p>
<p>So the University started changing things. I believe that’s how VP of Enrollment Michael Behnke got his job, of overseeing admissions and financial aid, in 1997. They also made the Common Core more manageable (or watered it down, depending on whom you ask) around 1999, built Max Palevsky dorm, to replace decrepit Woodward, built Ratner gym, remodeled Reynolds Club (which is still kinda sub-par for a student union) opened Bart Mart. I’m sure these investments, which were targeted distinctly towards undergraduate life and activity were reflected in admissions promotional material and highlighted on campus visits. </p>
<p>Or, you can think of the “If you build it, they will come” model. If you put 700 first-years in Max who are concerned about not being able to meet people, they’ll all meet each other. If you give them Ratner, they’ll have a reminder that the University would like them to shoot hoops and go swimming from time to time as well. So student life became better, as did positive student testimonials, and I have a very distinct sense that the majority of the students who end up applying to Chicago apply because they already know somebody who attends or has attended, and their positive testimony is persuasive. So part of the increase in applications could be attributable to the word of mouth phenomenon.</p>
<p>I don’t know enough about the admissions office promotional materials and things like when the postcard series started, but it’s clear now-- maybe it wasn’t back then-- that Chicago is drawing in some students not just because the institution is so remarkably different then and now, but rather that the right students are responding to the right marketing. Sometimes students here on CC will talk about the fact that Chicago sent them neat postcards when other schools had blunt attempts at seduction.</p>
<p>Anyway, I’m not big on conspiracy theories, but I can only imagine that the University as an institution is looking for students who can help promote its longevity in a variety of ways.</p>