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.

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.

"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.