SO THE spinster's finally going to catch the boy next door.

Just two years ago when Harvard generously considered merging with Radcliffe, Radcliffe bit her nails in expectation. An overwhelming majority of undergraduate women polled at that time-380 out of 400-cast eager eyes on the prospect of merger. Some were simply tired of deciding if they were Radcliffe students who went to school at Harvard or Harvard students who lived at Radcliffe. Many felt that Radcliffe had no real identity apart from Harvard anyway; Radcliffe was merely an embarrassing anachronism that should be wiped off the map.

But the key to undergraduate support of merger was coed living. Students favored merger primarily as a means to full coeducation. Mary I. Bunting, President of Radcliffe, said at the time, "We all know that President Pusey said there would be no coeducation without merger."

Preparations for merging the two institutions began, but on April 9, 1969, when students took over University Hall, plans were seriously disrupted. Students became restless over the delays, and pressed for coeducation.

"We don't want to have to wait two years for finalization of merger," complained one student at the time.

The "coed living experiment"-as it has since been called-which took place second semester of last year, was the result of repeated student agitation. Predictably, as men moved to Radcliffe and women moved to Harvard, the undergraduate push for merger relaxed. Students didn't seem to care anymore if Harvard and Radcliffe were legally married, as long as they were having an affair.

But two years later, as they awaken to find Radcliffe giving more and more of herself to Harvard, many Radcliffe students are viewing the work of their trustees-the so-called "non-merger" merger-with a blend of suspicion, anger, and despair.

"Radcliffe's prostituting herself," says Debbie Batts, a second-year students in the Law School and first president of the Radcliffe Union of Students (RUS).

In a recent poll conducted by the RUS, 304 students were against, 315 in doubt about the new "non-merger" relationship between Harvard and Radcliffe. A sizable number of the 157 people who favored the arrangement qualified their support by saying the relationship could definitely stand improvement.

Opinions vary in stress and intensity, but most often, dissatisfaction grows out of the fear that Radcliffe is being submerged rather than merged. "I don't want to be lost in the Harvard ego." one freshman says.

THERE are still those who contend that "Radcliffe is only the figment of the imagination of its alumnae," but for a growing number, the process of change in Radcliffe over the past two years has molded something clearly distinguishable from what Harvard has to offer, and in many instances, clearly preferable. "The warmth and high degree of communication among students and administration at Radcliffe is a thing unheard of at Harvard," observes one Radcliffe senior.

The increased sense of community and pride among students is an offshoot of the New Radcliffe. Physical changes have taken place in the past two years-besides the addition of men, Currier House, resident tutors, workshops, House seminars, even grills-which have accompanied, and to some extent, prodded subtler changes in the thinking of many Radcliffe undergraduates.

"There used to be a real split in feelings over the question of whether girls were going to Radcliffe or Harvard," explains Nancy Beth Gordon '71, last year's RUS president. "Now the girls see themselves less as either Harvard or Radcliffe students, and more as women in the Harvard-Radcliffe community."

A spokesman at the Radcliffe Career Planning Office describes what she calls "a growing intensity of feeling about a woman's right to have a career." Radcliffe women are more than ever aware of the implications of their ambitions, more than ever concerned about what it means to be a woman at male-oriented Harvard. As they sadly watch hopes of merger with a one-to-one ratio clatter to the ground beside visions of a beneficent, responsive Harvard, many of them begin to change their focus of questioning from what it was two years ago. Instead of asking "What do we have to gain?" they more cautiously consider "What do we have to lose by merging with Harvard?"

THE different answers to this question cover a wide range of opinion, and while some wonder if "milk and cookies" and Strawberry Breakfast are destined to become the myths of future Radcliffe generations, others are concerned about the fate of the Radcliffe Employment Agency and the Career Planning Office.