WHEN THE HARVARD Board of Overseers approved the Strauch report Monday, the merger of the Harvard and Radcliffe admissions offices and the institution of an equal access admissions policy was officially launched. Yet after a year of preparatory discussions designed to give everyone in the Harvard-Radcliffe community a clear picture of what the pending changes will mean for the undergraduate student body, some serious questions still must be answered:

* If equal access is a move away from quotas and "an artificially constructed student body," why has Harvard essentially promised alumni and concerned men in its community that there will be little or no change in the present male admissions quota?

* If equal access is indeed the method by which Harvard and Radcliffe intend to increase the number of women undergraduates, why do even Radcliffe administrators concede that there will be little or no change in the number of women admitted over the next few years?

* If a unified admissions office will be operated by both Harvard and Radcliffe, why will there be only one dean, appointed by Harvard's president?

Beneath all the rhetoric about equal access, one fact stands out: there will be no noticeable improvement in the present 2.3 to 1 male-female ratio for at least three more years.

Harvard has the capacity right now to equalize or improve the male-female ratio in the College, but it doggedly resists doing so. Radcliffe, which should want to add to its numbers, does not have the power to do so. Until Harvard lives up to its responsibility to educate students regardless of sex and admit them without a pre-conceived ratio in mind, equal access is just another euphemism for inequality.