Karl Strauch professor of Physics turned over the final report of the Committee to Study Aspects of the Harvard-Radcliffe Relationship to Presidents Bok and Horner on Thursday. Most of the text of 60-page report appears on the following three pages. Space limitations have prohibited the inclusion of the background material and statistical studies contained in the appendices of the report.

Issues and Recommendations:

As long as Harvard and Radcliffe were physically separate institutions, it probably seemed natural to decide the number of Harvard and Radcliffe students separately. This rationale has disappeared with the advent of coeducational living and the resulting unification of previously separate House systems by the 1971 agreement. The undergraduate of today still enters Harvard or Radcliffe, but thereafter he or she attends the same University, participates in the same programs, uses the same facilities and shares the same experiences. Of course some of these activities are still labeled Harvard or Radcliffe, or are not yet optimally designed for both sexes, but the vast majority are available to men and women on an equal and shared basis.

Under these conditions the separate admissions offices appear anachronistic to the undergraduate of today and the traditional system of having separate admissions targets for Harvard and Radcliffe constitutes a quota system for determining the men to women ratio of the undergraduate student body.

The obvious advantage of the quota system is that it provides the most direct method of achieving certain objectives. For instance, given the present applicant pool and general admission goals, only the quota system could immediately achieve a 1:1 ratio. Alternately, given a hoped-for larger pool of qualified women applicants, only the quota system could maintain the present 2.5:1 ratio for long.

On the other hand, any kind of quota, and in particular quotas based on race, religion or sex, are inconsistent with the role of an institution serving the public in a free society. Once it has accepted the task of educating both men and women, a university, dedicated as it is to intellectual freedom and dispassionate analysis, must provide equality of opportunity in admissions and intellectual development for both sexes. If a sex quota is acceptable, why are not other quotas all right? Now that Harvard has accepted, why are not other quotas all right? Now that Harvard has accepted full responsibility for education and housing of both men and women undergraduates, adoption of equal access admission is natural and compelling.

Thus the Committee recommends that an admission policy of equal access be instituted as soon as practical, that is for the admission of the class of 1980. We expect other admission policies to change little as the result of this recommendation. But we urge additional efforts to recruit a larger number of qualified women candidates as discussed in the next sections.

Implementation of this recommendation will make clear to all that the University is committed to enrolling and educating outstanding students irrespective of their sex. We expect that it will also encourage greater numbers of qualified women to apply than have in the past. This enlarged pool of women applicants will, in turn, help bring about an increase in the number of women students, which the Committee believes to be desirable.

It should also be noted that both state and national legislative trends are in the direction of forbidding discrimination on the basis of sex; the present quota system may well become illegal in the future.

Equal access to financial support is an integral part of a policy of equal access admission. We strongly endorse the present policy of admission without consideration of ability to pay, and the offer of sufficient financial aid to all who may need it.

Diversity of the student body is one of the great strengths of the University of today, and no factor contributes more to social and economic diversity than the policy of admission independent of ability to pay and the offer of sufficient financial aid to all who may need it. We are under no illusion concerning the fact that even with the financial aid that is made available, attendance at Harvard or other private institutions requires greater financial sacrifices from families than does enrollment in most public institutions and that this is reflected in the applicant pools. This situation only reinforces the importance of maintaining the present policy of admission without consideration of ability to pay, and of offering sufficient financial aid to all that may need it. Preservation of this policy in the future should be a matter of highest priority.

Effects of Equal Access

We believe that the arguments for a policy of equal access are sufficiently compelling so that early implementation should be postponed only if it were to seriously compromise the programs and character of the University. In fact we expect problems that may arise to be quite manageable and see no reason for postponement. Most of these problems and possible solutions are closely related to the questions of a larger number of women students and of the size of the college. The following are of particular concern to the implementation of the equal access policy.

(1) In our view, an equal access policy requires administration by a single admission committee and staff. As has been discussed, the policies and organization of the Harvard and Radcliffe admission committees and staffs are now very similar; the two groups are learning to work together. Thus, at this time, unification should be possible with a minimum of perturbation of the admission process.

(2) Had the Class of 1978 been admitted by a unified committee under the policy of equal access, the Class would not have been significantly different from the one that came to Cambridge in the fall of 1974. This is primarily due to the similarity between the men and women applicant pools, and the fact that at present their relative sizes match the 2.5:1 quota. While we expect the women applicant pool to increase relative to the men applicant pool as a result of equal access and of other factors, this growth ought to be at a pace such that the University should be able to adjust.

(3) Equality in financial aid will not increase the cost of financial aid per student as the relative number of women increases. In the immediate future, the cost per student is in fact likely to decrease as the result of differing financial needs of men and women in the present pools.

(4) In the past women students have tended to concentrate more in the humanities and less in the more mathematical subjects of the natural and social sciences. While special recruiting efforts to enrich the applicant pool with women interested in these subjects can minimize the effect of these tendencies, they are likely to exist for some time to come. This could pose a problem of proper utilization of University resources if there were sudden, large changes in the number of women. While recommending an overall increase in the number of women students, we believe that this increase will be sufficiently gradual so that special recruiting efforts for both men and women applicants interested in the affected fields and small adjustments in admission policies can prevent the consequences in this general area of an increasing number of women students from becoming serious.

We believe that an admission policy based on equal access is in the best interest of the University and of its constituents, and that implementation starting with the Class of 1980 is both practical and desirable.

Needs of Coeducation:

We recommend that the men to women student ratio be reduced from the present ratio of 2.5:1, and that the increased number of women be admitted within a policy of equal access. Success in reaching this goal will require an enlarged pool of qualified women applicants, and correspondingly more vigorous recruiting efforts will be necessary.

We believe firmly that implementation of a policy of equal access admissions coupled with increased recruiting efforts, will yield the desired results but we cannot be certain because this depends to a large extent on the future evolution of the national and local pools of potential women applicants. In the admission process, small fluctuations in characteristics of the applicant pool can at least partially be taken care of by small adjustments in the evaluation process. We do not expect that implementation of the equal access policy will increase the men to women ratio above the present value. On the contrary, we expect it to decrease. Other universities similar to Harvard with a tradition of equal access admissions now have a 1.5:1 ratio; we expect similar progress here within a reasonable period.

We believe that the advantages of increasing the number of women under conditions where both education and admission do not differentiate among the sexes are considerable, infact philosophically it is hard to defend admissions under a quota system followed by education without regard to sex. The recommended method for increasing the number of women students is the most likely to yield a class which can best profit from the resources of the University and thus, in the future, best serve society. By being equally fair to all concerned, we expect the increase in the number of women under equal access to proceed without undue difficulties and to command wide support from all segments of the University Community.

To increase the pool of qualified women applicants significantly will require leadership from Cambridge and much effort, particularly from alumni and alumnae, it is encouraging that between 1970 and 1974 the Radcliffe applicant pool has increased from 2548 to 3388. In the same period, the Harvard applicant pool has remained stationary at an average of about 7650.

The special recruiting efforts will be one of the most important tasks of the unified admissions organization working closely with alumnae and alumni organizations.

With these considerations in mind, we recommend that the progress in increasing the number of women students be reviewed at the end of a three-year period of equal access admissions and special recruiting efforts. This review should be conducted by a committee appointed by the Presidents of Harvard and Radcliffe, or through such mechanism as seems appropriate to them.

Women on the Faculty

The importance in a coeducational institution of substantial representation of both sexes among the teaching faculty and the administration surely does not need to be stressed again. It has been well expressed and studied with particular reference to Harvard and Radcliffe in the 1971 Report of the Committee on the Status of Women in the Faculty

The need for "role models" came up frequently during our discussion of coeducational needs but considering all the previous attention given to this topic we can add little that is new

There has been some progress, particularly in the number of women tutors in the Houses which has increased from 70 in 1970 to 152 in 1973. In many other parts of the University the change has been much more gradual Realistically, because of the large differences in sizes of relevant pools, the pace of change must be expected to be slow in certain sectors of the University.

In other sectors, such as among administrators, and particularly those directly concerned with students, an early increase in the number of women should be possible and be given immediate and continued attention. "Counting" should of course include both Harvard and Radcliffe personnel.

The importance of "role models" is not just through their existence, but at least equally through the demonstration that men and women can work successfully together within a mixed hierarchy. Attitudinal problems can best be resolved by such cooperation. We expect that the unified admissions organization which we recommend will serve as a model in this regard.

Counseling

Interest among men and women students in learning about the challenges of combining profession, marriage and family raising is growing. The order of priority is of course an individual decision. However, the exploration of the alternatives, problems, and possible solutions should be sponsored by the University, through individual counseling and/or lectures and meetings.

Individuals are usually most personally affected by these problems after they have left college. The Radcliffe Office of Alumnae Career Services has performed a most valuable service in offering assistance in career counseling for alumnae, and it is important that this work be continued and strengthened.

The importance of "models" in this area is evident. It is essential that these models come from a wide diversity of professions and activities, and not just from academia, teaching or administrative, since only a small fraction of our graduates are likely to find their future in that particular area.

Fellowships and Prizes

A number of prizes and fellowships are still restricted to members of a specific sex. Out of a total number of 70 (22) Prizes (Fellowships), 8 (5) are open only to women and 15 (8) are open only to men. All such restrictions are anomalous within the present context of coeducation and should be eliminated as soon as it can be arranged.

We recommend a goal of awarding prizes and fellowships under a policy of equal access.

We realize that implementation involves some difficult legal questions and the commitment to honor the intent of donors. However, we believe that substantial further progress toward the desired goal is possible, and we urge new efforts in that direction. It may in some cases be possible to at least pair corresponding prizes or fellowships so that by considering available funds over a period of years, awards can be given purely on the basis of merit in any given year. Alternately additional funding should be sought to make possible the granting of awards in those years where a member of the excluded sex is the winner.

There is no better way to demonstrate equal access in competition and awards than to have the selection done by both men and women. We also suggest wider publicity of the awards available.

Physical Plant

We have identified two areas in which the existing physical plants of Harvard and Radcliffe are responsible for problems connected with the increase in the number of women students and the closer relationship between the two institutions.

During the last 20 years, atheistic facilities have not grown with the remainder of the University. This fact has made adjustment to the increased number of women and the new emphasis on women's athletics difficult. Although we have found that facilities available to women today are superior to those available before the 1971 agreement, they are sometimes less satisfactory than those for men. We urge that high priority be given to the requirements of women in planning and construction of future improvements to the athletic plant, and that meanwhile efforts be expanded to make existing facilities available on a more equal basis. There has been substantial progress in the more equal sharing of existing facilities since 1971; further progress is needed and we recommend that a task force be appointed to make specific recommendations where needed.

The Quad facilities represent the second problem area. The social, recreational and living facilities of North House and South House do not match corresponding facilities of the River Houses. Quad Houses are quite removed from the central athletic facilities. Some of these discrepancies affect not just the "living standard," but hinder the functioning of the House as a unit. The most glaring examples of this are perhaps the lack of comparable common space (which at most Houses has other uses such as for theatrical performances) in both North and South Houses and of a Master's Residence (which is the center of many joint student-faculty activities in most Houses) in South House.

Changes in the Quad that were highly desirable in the past when it housed only women have not proven the most efficient for the purposes of today. It seems to us important that any decision on the future use and improvement of the Quad (as for all other University property) be made within the context of the overall University requirements. We also believe that such necessary construction should be given very high priority in the capital program of the University.

In making these recommendations, we are aware that as long as Harvard and Radcliffe are legally separate institutions, the use of the Quad as a regular part of the University may present some difficulty. We hope that the spirit of pragmatism that made possible coeducational living can also be applied here.

North House and South House are traditionally organized differently from the River Houses; they contain members from all four classes and have individual rooms grouped along corridors instead of suites grouped in entries. From opinions given to us by students, we find that those students who live in North House and South House prefer their system, those who live in the River Houses prefer the "entry" system. Whether this is "because" or "why" they live in the particular area we do not know.

In our investigation and discussion of coeducational needs, we have found the people in positions of responsibility at both Harvard and Radcliffe sensitive to the needs of coeducation, and responsible to specific complaints and suggestions. We are confident that the needs identified in this section will be taken care of.

The Size of the College:

The view of the Committee that an increase in the number of women attending the University is desirable raises the question of the future size of the undergraduate student body. Should an increase in the number of women be tied to an increase in the size of the student body?

To try to evaluate factors which determine the answer to this question, we have studied the effects of a limited increase in the size of the entering class from the present level of 1550-1600 students to a future level of 1750-1800 students through the addition of women. All members of the Committee agreed that it was of the greatest importance to preserve the present character of the College and the quality of the educational experience. With this in mind, no member felt that it would be useful to consider at this time a model with a growth factor beyond the one used.

Two sister institutions have expanded significantly in the process of becoming coeducational. Princeton and Yale were all male until 1968; both became coeducational in 1969 and both have recently adopted equal access admission policies. Between 1968 and 1974 the entering class at Princeton has increased by 33 per cent (from 852 to 1137 students) while at Yale it has increased by 27 per cent (from 1025 to 1307 students); at the same time, the number of entering men has decreased by seven per cent at Princeton (from 852 to 796) and by 18 per cent at Yale (from 1025 to 843). Because of the long association between Harvard and Radcliffe, the University is fortunate that it need not contemplate increases of the same magnitude. Since we start with a sizeable number of women students, the pressures are reduced for employing expansion as the quickest method of increasing their number.

The consequences of the assumed 13 per cent increase in the number of students on those areas for which a quantitative evaluation is possible can be summarized as follows:

(1) Assuming that present concentration preferences remain stable (not necessarily true in practice), the number of natural scientists would remain about stable, the number of social scientists would grow by about 10 per cent of humanists by about 20 per cent.

(2) Some small decrease from present levels in the number of men students will occur as the number of women students increases as anticipated.

(3) A substantial amount of new student housing would be required to maintain present standards of living space and quality.

(4) Other University facilities such as class rooms, libraries and laboratories could adjust themselves to the assumed increase with more minor changes (athletic facilities constitute a likely exception).

It is much more difficult to evaluate the consequences of the assumed increase on other and more intangible but at least equally important factors which are included under the term "the quality of the undergraduate experience at Harvard." In fact their evaluation involves mainly individual perception and experience.

Thus it is not surprising that no question before the Committee has produced a wider range of discussion than the future size of the College. The Committee agreed on the major factors that influence the decision; differences arose because members tended to give different priority and significance to individual factors. Some foresaw the problems of limited expansion as quite solvable, and thus gave priority to the benefits which accrue from minimizing the reduction in the number of men. Others felt that any expansion was likely to erode seriously the quality of education, both formal and informal, and further, that the problems and costs of expansion were more serious than the problems arising from a reduction in the number of men. Other members found themselves at various points between these two positions.

Given this range of views, it appears to be useful to state the major factors that entered into the discussions and to summarize the arguments which determined the relative weight given to each by various members of the Committee.

1. Some felt that the University should not decrease substantially the number of men and argued that, while women will play an increasingly active part in business and the professions, men's role will continue to be considerably more important for a long time into the future. The University, because of its great resources and high standards, has a long tradition of training students who later play significant roles in the business, professional and scholarly worlds well in excess of their relative number. This is a tradition which the University must continue. While acknowledging the need to attract more women to the University, they argued that this should not require equivalent reductions in the number of men, but rather a gradual increase in the size of the incoming class. Many Harvard alumni were reported to hold this view.

Others emphasized that the University has a unique opportunity to train the future women leaders. The University has traditionally adjusted to meet changing needs of society. The student body now includes members from a much wider cross-section of society than it has in the past, and the University is the better for it. This diversification has been possible without any increase in the number of men thanks to a growing applicant pool (the Harvard pool has more than doubled since 1956). All segments of the University community have accommodated to these changes in the past, and they will continue to do so.

2. A somewhat larger class would enable the admission office to respond more fairly and completely to a larger applicant pool, and to more general pressures for further diversification of the entering class such as the addition of more women. Of particular concern is the traditional preference for children of alumni and alumnae. There are strong indications that the financial support of alumni is frequently correlated with the length of family connection with Harvard, and that for many alumni (as well as non-alumni) the admission of a son continues to be more important than that of a daughter.

Answers to these concerns were as follows. In the last 15 years the University of the Harvard student body has been significantly broadened as the result of a very large increase in the number of applicants but without substantial increase in the size of the entering class. Even if the number of men should be decreased, suitable admission policies will enable the University to keep a proper balance with its traditional commitments. Increasing the number of women will further enhance the diversity of the student body. The changing social climate will equalize the importance of admission of daughters and sons, and the financial support of alumnae will hopefully become as important as that of alumni.

3. Concern was expressed about the potential impact on the use of some University resources. Since some subjects have tended to be more popular with women than with men, any growth in the relative number of women students will increase the number of students in some departments, many of which are in the humanities and some of which are already very crowded. On the other hand, women have in the past shown less interest in the physical sciences than have men, and there are few indications that this situation is changing rapidly. Economics is another example of a concentration which in the past has been chosen by few women; there are some signs of change, however. Harvard has a long tradition of excellence in these fields. A substantial decrease in the number of students interested in the physical sciences or economics will decrease the utilization of great University resources.

While acknowledging that this was a serious problem, som felt that special recruiting efforts to attract potential physical scientists, and women scientists in particular, should keep this particular problem within manageable boundaries.

4. While a moderate increase in the undergraduate student body would tend to keep the number of physical science students constant, it would compound the problem of crowded lectures, sections and tutorials in some other departments, particularly in the humanities. While recognizing that increases in faculty could in principle compensate for increases in the number of students, there was some skepticism that sufficient additional faculty would in fact become available.

The existence and importance of this problem is self-evident. Since the physical plant for teaching purposes is not thought to be a present limitation, many felt that the additional faculty needed to take care of the increased number of students could and should be made possible by the additional tuition payments. Further, the graduate school is shrinking because of the reduction in funds from outside the University available for the support of graduate students. This should allow the shifting of some faculty resources to undergraduate instruction and supervision.

5. The residential facilities of the College are already crowded, and any increase in the number of students without new living accommodation would make conditions intolerable. A large majority of undergraduate students were reported to hold this view.

Critics of this position pointed out that the River Houses hosted about 10 per cent more students a decade ago than they do today and that there is no evidence that students ten years ago felt any more crowded than the students of today. However, all pro-expansion advocates agreed that any significant increase in the size of the student body would require new facilities, such as a new House, to keep individual living space at its present desirable level. And there was general agreement that the construction of a new House would require a major fund raising effort.

6. Any increase in size of the student body, even with additional facilities and faculty, would diminish the quality of instruction and life at the University and make the educational experience less personal and less valuable.

Others pointed out that the University has grown slowly and continuously, and that the same arguments were used against each increase. On balance, past growth has yielded more benefits than disadvantages in terms of new programs, better facilities, increased tutorial and more courses, particularly small ones. Given the present size of the College, the House already is the most important community for the social life of all, and the intellectual life of many students. An increased size of the University would not seriously affect undergraduate life as long as the houses remained strong and adequate to serve their membership.

7. Some felt that to make equal access admissions and a larger number of women students dependent upon plans for expansion in order to hold the number of males constant would diminish the commitment made by the University to women and merely substitute a changed and more subtle quota for an explicit one. These members felt that a true commitment to equal access requires acceptance of the possible consequence of fewer men.

While understanding the feelings which support this argument, others saw no contradiction with a recommendation for a reasonable increase in the size of the College if, after consideration of all relevant factors, such as increase could be shown best for the University and all of its constituents.

It came as no surprise that those members most closely associated with Harvard alumni gave much weight to the disadvantages of decreasing the number of men, while those in closest contact with undergraduates gave most weight to the disadvantages of expansion.

This committee has tried to be as quantitative as possible in the evaluation of the relative importance of the various factors that have been identified but this has proven rather difficult. Even such a straightforward question: "would the cost of educating additional students be compensated by corresponding additional tuition payments?" does not produce a straightforward answer. It seems clear that experience will be required to ascertain how serious some of the potential problems really are, and to produce the best solution. Two additional variables are involved. One, the speed with which the number of women students will increase as a result of the recommended policies of equal access and of additional efforts of recruitment of qualified women candidates, has been discussed in the previous section.

The second and very important variable is the serious financial crisis faced by the University as a result of inflation. The duration and degree of seriousness of this crisis will depend of the duration and magnitude of inflation in the future. If the cost of tuition and of student housing keeps increasing at the present rate, what will happen to the applicant pool? Will it become necessary to use existing facilities more efficiently to prevent the student body from including only those most able to pay? Should the applicant pool decrease substantially because of the lower cost of attending public institutions, will excess facilities necessitate major lowering of admission standards? We pose such questions to illustrate how the present economic uncertainty affects the ability to recommend definite plans for the future. Including substantial new investments in physical plant. In fact, it is conceivable that future economic developments will affect undergraduate education at Harvard much more drastically than the changes that are being considered here.

Experience with the effect of the recommended policies on admission and recruitment will resolve many of the uncertainties in the relative importance of the various factors in the decision process. With these considerations in mind, the committee agrees on the following:

1. That while advocating equal access and increased recruiting of women, applicants, we recommend that the size of the College should not be substantially increased at this time.

2. That special recruiting efforts be instituted to attract more physical scientists in general, and more women scientists in particular. There are some other fields, such as economics, which may require special attention.

3. That the admissions organization in conjunction with other appropriate University offices retain flexibility to respond to some of the problems that may arise by small changes in the size of the entering class, by small shifts in emphasis in admission criteria used in the contest of equal access admission policy, and by special recruiting efforts.

We would not expect fluctuations in the number of entering students to exceed fifty to seventy five students. We also do not expect the number of women students to decrease; on the contrary, we expect this number to increase. As discussed previously, we expect the women-to-men ratio to reach a 1.5:1 value within a reasonable period. Implementation of an admission policy of equal access should have little effect on the other admissions policies such as the preference given, other factors being equal, to children of alumnae and alumni as well as to minority groups.

4. That the results of the recommended admission and recruiting policies and their effect on the student body and the University be carefully monitored.

We suggest that a subgroup on the Harvard-Radcliffe Committee on Admissions and Financial Aid be specifically designated by the President-Dean of Radcliffe and the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences to carry out this monitor role, and that this subgroup report its findings on a yearly basis. We recommend such careful monitoring because of the many uncertainties concerning the detailed effects of equal access admissions on several sectors of the University. We expect such special monitoring to become unnecessary after a few years of experience.

Before deciding on the advisability of a substantial expansion of the College, sufficient information on the effect of the recommended policies should be obtained. One may hope that during this period the economic situation will have stabilized sufficiently to permit a more sensible evaluation of alternatives than is possible today. Should it prove desirable and possible to increase the number of students, a variety of potential methods should be considered. These include increased use of the summer semester and of off-campus living, admission of a larger number of commuters, admission of a larger number of transfer students, construction of a new House, and a number of smaller additions to existing Houses and Dormitories.

Administration:

We have studied in detail the administrative arrangements that have evolved since the 1971 non-merger agreement as they affected Admissions, Financial and Women's Education. Our conclusions, and recommended changes for implementation of a policy of equal access admission, are reported below. Other administrative arrangements resulting from the 1971 agreement were discussed only briefly; we found no obvious problems. Looking at how the new arrangements were implemented we did find instances where more care and sensitivity to such considerations as rank and title could have prevented disappointments. We have used this observation in formulating our recommendations.

Admissions and Financial Aid

Formulation and interpretation of a policy of equal access admissions and financial aid for both Harvard and Radcliffe students require a single Admissions and Financial Aid Committee. Evaluation, admission and award of financial aid under a policy of equal access require a single staff organization. We therefore recommend, unification of the two committees and of the two staff organizations concerned with admissions and financial aid. These conclusions follow from considerations of effectiveness and efficiency; it would at best be extremely time-consuming to make sure that no differences in procedures and attitudes exist in two separate groups. Just as important is the fact that a single Harvard-Radcliffe Admissions and Financial Aid Committee and a single Harvard-Radcliffe Admissions and Financial Aid Office will act as symbols of the commitment of the University to the admission and education of men and women with equal opportunities for both.

The Dean of Harvard-Radcliffe Admissions and Financial Aid, and the members of the Harvard-Radcliffe Standing Committee on Admissions and Financial Aid should be appointed by the President of Harvard University upon the joint recommendation of the President-Dean of Radcliffe and the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

The only major argument against the proposed unification of the committees and offices concerned the significant reduction in direct Radcliffe responsibility for undergraduates and the further erosion of the independence of Radcliffe. All members of our committee had great understanding for this concern. They also felt that for the education of women the benefits of equal access admissions of which a unified administration is a necessary part, outweigh the disadvantages. The proposed changes seem less important to the independent role of Radcliffe than was the merging of the two House Systems in 1971.

We deliberately use the work "unification" to describe the process which we have in mind. We do not recommend the swallowing of a little fish by a big fish. We hope for the combining of what is best in both groups into one effective organization which will serve men and women in the University community on an equal basis.

That unification could be carried out without some problems would be hoping for too much. There are likely to be some dislocations and disappointments whenever two groups combine. But every effort should be made to minimize such occurrences. This is not only a matter of justice and recognition of past service. There can be no firmer basis for the unified organization than a general recognition by its members that every reasonable effort has been made to best use the diverse talent that exists in the two parent administrations.

Organization and staffing of the Harvard-Radcliffe Office of Admissions and Financial Aid will be the first challenging task of the future Dean once he or she has been appointed. It is obvious that she or he will wish to draw on past experience and consult widely those with relevant expertise. It is not appropriate for a Committee to make specific organizational recommendations, but it can be helpful in suggesting general guidelines. The following seem sensible to us:

1. The present organizations appear to work well within their separate zones of activity. We expect the unified organization to be similar, and the differences to reflect mainly the increased scope to the combined operation.

2. The staffing must reflect the aim of admitting the strongest possible coeducational class by involving both men and women in all types of work and at all levels of organization. As mentioned before, the unified office has a splendid opportunity to demonstrate equal access staffing and successful operation with a mixed hierarchy. This opportunity cannot be missed!

Every reasonable effort should be made to give present Harvard and Radcliffe staff members positions and ranks equivalent or higher than those being held at this time. Any changes in title in particular should be considered with great sensitivity.

4. We expect that most, if not all, present employees and staff members of the two offices to be members of the unified organization. If there should be a person whose services are not needed, he or she must be assured of first choice on any suitable position within the University which is available.

Alumni-ae Recruiting

No part of the effort needed to reach the goal of making the University a truly coeducational institution of the highest distinction is more important than the task of recruiting a pool of applicants with high qualifications and great diversity, including that of sex. Harvard alumni and Radcliffe alumnae play a most important role in the task. In the past, when the two institutions were more separate, these activities were also conducted rather separately. As the two colleges have drawn closer together, cooperation between the two groups has grown. As pointed out in the AHA Guidelines for Clubs released two years ago, such alumniae cooperation is desirable, benefits the University as a whole, spares time and effort and helps additionally to project a more realistic picture of the current Cambridge than do separate efforts.

In view of the differences in size, it is not surprising that Harvard's network of alumni admissions recruiters and interviewers is more far-flung, larger and much more organized than is Radcliffe's. Each group still tends to maintain its traditional loyalty to one of the Colleges. However, in many places (especially where the Radcliffe Club is strong) cooperation between the two groups has begun in a few places it is advanced Cambridge must provide the leadership and the guidelines that will help Harvard and Radcliffe interviewers and recruiters work more closely together. There are also many places where Radcliffe is not represented by alumnae at all, and Harvard alumni in some of these places have already been very effective and helpful to both committees.

With unification of the two Admissions Offices and thus of the recruiting efforts, close coordination of relevant activities of corresponding alumnae and alumni clubs and representatives will be essential. "Equal access" admissions must be preceded by "equal access" recruiting.

The Role of Radcliffe

Radcliffe's responsibility is to serve women who come to Harvard as students. It acts as a locus of concern, problem identification and action for women in the University. Alumnae have strong ties to its identity and traditions and great pride in its success in the advocacy of women in the University. The Office of Admissions, Financial Aid and Women's Education is the most visible Radcliffe agency concerned with undergraduate education; the Radcliffe Institute and the Schlesinger Library serve a different constituency.

Implementation of our recommendation for unification into a single Harvard-Radcliffe Office of Admissions and Financial Aid leaves the Office of Women's Education (in conjunction with the Office of the President-Dean) as the major uniquely Radcliffe institution concerned with undergraduates. In carrying out Radcliffe's traditional responsibility to women at Harvard, the location of the Office of Women's Education is of some importance. The advocacy for women in Harvard College is best carried out by working closely with and within the Harvard College administration which is located in University Hall. The experience of the Admissions Offices has demonstrated the great benefits of adjacent location for close operation. If this were the only consideration, the Office of Women's Education would work best out of University Hall.

On the other hand many alumnae desire a physically visible separate identity for the remaining Radcliffe functions, a desire which is easy to understand. There are also students two share that point of view. This favors continuation of the present location at Fay House.

While the Committee wishes that the time would soon come when special efforts on behalf of women are no longer needed in the University, it believes that such efforts are still needed today, and will be needed for some time to come. It is natural for Radcliffe to continue to play the major role in this important function. The majority of the Committee believes that location in University Hall of the Radcliffe staff particularly concerned with this role would be most efficient and helpful for all concerned. We can also understand the concern for maintaining a visible symbol of Radcliffe identity. We as a Committee do not feel that we should make a recommendation between two alternatives whose evaluation depends much on individual attitudes and habits. The decision is best made by those who have the responsibility for carrying out the dual task.

Men-to-Women RatioClass  MW  M W  MW  MW  MWSize  70%--30%  65%--35%  60%--40%  55%--45%  50%--50%1600  1120 480  1040 560  960 640  880 720  800 8001550  1085 465  1008 542  930 620  852 697  775 7751650  1155 495  1073 578  990 660  908 742  825 8251700  1190 510  1105 595  1020 680  935 765  850 8501750  1225 525  1138 612  1050 700  963 787  875 8751800  1260 540  1170 630  1080 720  990 810  900 90