Expressing a fairly common viewpoint, one senior says. "There is so much to lose-mainly, the virtue of being small."

"I don't see any benefits for Radcliffe in the 'non-merger' except that Harvard is paying a few bills," says a sophomore living at Currier House. "Either there should be total merger or let Radcliffe retain its autonomy."

Slowly, the word spreads that Radcliffe has sold herself too cheaply by agreeing to the "non-merger," that she has forfeited a power base for women without getting much in return.

"Why can't Radcliffe merge with Harvard completely without being brought to her knees first?" asks one senior. "Harvard takes away from Radcliffe all that is distinct and individual, and only then condescends to merge, when there's nothing left of Radcliffe to merge with."

Direct complaints against the new relationship between Harvard and Radcliffe deal with the "vague and ambiguous" role of Radlcliffe's new President. Many students are concerned over exactly what the head of Radcliffe will do in the future, or more significantly, over what Harvard will let her do.

Strong objections are made extending the Harvard House system to Radcliffe. Many students resent the sacrifice of Radcliffe's way of doing things to Harvard's, without even the consideration of the fact that Radcliffe's way might be better. Phrases such as "swallowed up," "absorbed," "engulfed," and "stepped on" are frequently used by students to describe Radcliffe's dilemma.

"Radcliffe is a different kind of place from Harvard," says Ann Glendening '72, organizer of the RUS poll. "Many people would like to see the dimension of difference maintained."

Men living at Radcliffe-who are in the strategic position of having experienced both Harvard and Radcliffe life-are articulate on the subject of preserving Radcliffe's own personality and identity. "Radcliffe should keep a distinct character," says a Harvard junior living at Radcliffe. "Radcliffe Houses should not parody Harvard Houses. The living units and the dining rooms should be kept small."

BUT the most unifying and the most immediate concern for many Radcliffe students is the need for more women at Harvard-a concern which the "non-merger" doesn't address at all.

The recent commotion over making all Houses coed, despite the four-to-one ratio at Harvard. helped solidify opinions on this issue. One thousand signatures-Harvard signatures as well as Radcliffe signatures-have been collected on a petition for equal admissions of men and women and a one-to-one ratio in coed Houses, Rabecca J. Scott '71 reported two weeks ago.

A junior who said she was against the "non-merger" explains, "I would be in favor of a real merger which would increase the number of women at Harvard."

Some students even venture that the "non-merger" is a deliberate attempt on Harvard's part to avoid the ratio issue, perhaps a legal loophole to evade prosecution by the HEW for discriminatory admissions policies. Controversy grows since financial feasibility and responsibility to the Cambridge community change the problem from one of increasing the number of women at Harvard to reducing the number of men.

P/>The Harvard administration spouts arguments about "comparative pain levels"-men would suffer if fewer were admitted. Some worry about alumni contributions going down if Harvard takes in more women at the expense of men. And some Harvard men timidly search their souls and

wonder if they would be here today if Harvard had taken fewer men their year (feeling somewhat threatened, "Why, take Mike; he got in off the waiting list").

But many Radcliffe women are feeling somewhat threatened also, and angry. They are reevaluating their position at Harvard, and wondering how much they can expect from an administration that has not yet even admitted the possibility of reducing the number of men in order to improve the four-to-one ratio. They become increasingly convinced that such attitudes express beliefs on Harvard's part that the education of women is not as important as the education of men.