Committee members say, however, that there is not strict division of opinion along Harvard-Radcliffe lines--largely because the Radcliffe contingent has secured complete agreement that for the moment, Radcliffe is an institution worth preserving. "There are differing views," Belin says, "but the Radcliffe representatives feel it would be premature to have a full merger, that there's not enough to be gained."

Burr says a full merger this year is "extremely improbable" and that "we don't want to let Radcliffe get swallowed up into Harvard if it is much smaller." The idea seems to be that given the choice between a Harvard that includes a womens' institution and one that is overwhelmingly male, women here would choose the former.

The unlikeliness of merger, though, does not mean that the Joint Policy Committee will opt for the other extreme and move Harvard and Radcliffe farther apart. Steiner says that while the committee has three broad options--separating Harvard and Radcliffe, moving them closer together or staying with the present arrangement--it is generally "moving in the direction of one institution."

All that does not leave much room for drastic action by the committee, only slow unification of the two institutions while keeping Radcliffe alive. Committee members will not say exactly what they are likely to report in October, but it is possible to make some educated guesses about the immediate future of the committee and of Radcliffe.

The committee will probably ask for some sort of official recognition by the governing boards, which should be granted almost automatically. The committee is still technically just an informal group, not officially organized and with no official powers. Its recommendations might include a request that it become the official arm of the Corporation and the Trustees that will deal with the Harvard-Radcliffe relationship. This would probably mean the dissolution of the old Budget Committee.

Increased cooperation between the Harvard and Radcliffe administrations seems to be a priority for the committee. Horner's dual appointment three years ago as a Radcliffe president and a Harvard dean was the first step toward this goal, and Horner has been focusing more and more attention on her deanship during the last year. The committee could recommend an increase in Horner's Harvard powers, new Harvard titles for Radcliffe administrators, or new Radcliffe seats on Harvard administrative institutions like the Administrative Board or the Council of Deans.

Radcliffe's present institutions--with the possible exception of admissions--are likely to remain Radcliffe property for the next year. The Radcliffe Institute and the Office of Women's Education both have recently-appointed directors and are among the institutions Horner regards as most important to Radcliffe.

The financial arrangement between Harvard and Radcliffe will probably remain the same through this year. If Radcliffe were to try to keep its income and achieve financial independence from Harvard it would be moving in a direction opposite to that of the committee. On the other hand, committee members see the Radcliffe endowment and properties as essential to the institution; Steiner says that Radcliffe "will retain its property as long as it remains an institution." Much of the protective attitude toward Radcliffe's endowment must come from alumnae, who are afraid the day is fast approaching when they will have to tell people they went to a college that no longer exists--and if Radcliffe got swallowed up, its alumnae might be reluctant to give money to Harvard.

The fate of the admissions office depends completely on what the Strauch committee concludes; if it recommends sex-blind admissions, as expected, there will be little sense in maintaining separate admissions offices. And if there is a single admissions office, separate financial aid offices would make little sense, especially since Radcliffe would not have enough money to handle the increased financial aid burdens sex-blind admissions would bring.

An admissions merger would bring considerable pressure for corporate merger. Radcliffe is, after all, an undergraduate college, and if it were to lose its admissions office its only undergraduate-related branch would be the OWE. The Joint Policy Committee may be against full merger at the moment, but whatever it does this year will probably end up as a series of stop gap measures paving the way to merger. The University cannot keep inching Harvard and Radcliffe closer together while avoiding merger forever.