"Harvard doesn't seem to understand that women are different from but just as worthy as men," says one Radcliffe junior. A freshman adds, "I don't think Harvard really knows what's best for women."

A more reassuring viewpoint is taken by some Radcliffe officials. Kathleen Elliott, Dean of Radcliffe College, emphasizes that Harvard has had the important responsibility of educating Radcliffe women since 1943, and, in her opinion, has more than lived up to it.

Trustees and alumnae stress that the four-year period between the beginning of the "non-merger" and its reevaluation will be a period of transition and development, when Radcliffe women can work to push their interests.

"We had hoped that any arrangement would take a significant step forward for women," explains Barbara Voss, President of the Radcliffe Alumnae Association. "We'd like to work at making this plan evolve in the best possible way."

Still, many women living at Harvard report that they would be more comfortable with a larger number of women in the Houses. Others have sour opinions because of the original CHUL coresidency plan which seemed to carelessly sprinkle women throughout the House in order to please the men.

And many remember times when they walked in to dinner at Radcliffe to find Mary Bunting sitting at one of the tables, and if they realize the inevitability of becoming a part of larger Harvard, at the same time, they wonder if they won't be losing quite a few good things in the transition.