THE initial goal of Radcliffe in 1879 was to give women a Harvard education. But for the last 15 years, Harvard has taken on that task itself. Much of undergraduate life here, and at other formerly all-male universities, has become completely co-educational. Parents now send both daughters and sons off to college, and the days of graduating with a "MRS" degree are fading.

As a result, Radcliffe finds itself in an odd position. Very few "Harvard" women realize what Radcliffe is anymore. The center of academic life is Harvard. not Radcliffe, Yard.

Newly arrived Radcliffe President Linda S. Wilson is faced with the challenge of establishing a direction for the college. Some students and administrators believe Radcliffe should seek a greater role in the lives of undergraduates. But it is unclear if that is the most desirable goal.

A Radcliffe that focuses on graduate programs may be a more effective voice and resource for women.

AS a Radcliffe intern over the summer, I spent a lot of time learning about all that Radcliffe does. My experience contrasts with that of the majority of undergraduates, whose only contact with Radcliffe Yard is an admissions interview at Byerly Hall and may be a musical at the Agassiz.

At the moment, Radcliffe's strengths lie in its graduate and research programs. The Murray Research Center has one of the nation's best collections of social science data. The Schlesinger Library is the leading research library in the field of women's studies. Other programs like the Bunting Institute and the Radcliffe Publishing Course carry on Radcliffe's tradition of offering prestigious educational opportunities.

These graduate programs could help keep Radcliffe financially solvent. Alumnae donations are going to decrease steadily as women graduates identify more and more with Harvard than with Radcliffe. As a full-fledged research institution, however, Radcliffe could be in a better position to apply for grants and similar sorts of funds.

In other words, Radcliffe's drift out of the undergraduate scene and towards greater prominence on the graduate and post-graduate study level could make it a stronger institution in the future.

MANY Radcliffe alumnae and administrators would like the college to reverse this trend away from undergraduates. Although Harvard is co-educational, these people believe there are still ways that Radcliffe can act as a support group for undergraduate women.

But as it exists now, Radcliffe has few resources to support women in male-dominated concentrations such as physics, chemistry and economics. Would expanding Radcliffe's role for undergraduates be worth the corresponding sacrifice in successful graduate programs?

Another problem is that almost all Radcliffe departments have trouble making undergraduates aware of their existence. Students who do take advantage of their programs get a lot out of them. Since many Radcliffe programs are smaller than their Harvard counter-parts, students have a much better chance of getting personal attention and support. I had a terrific experience as an intern this summer, but the number of students actually involved in Radcliffe's programs is relatively small.

A graduate emphasis for Radcliffe does not mean that the college must halt its support for female students. Research and graduate programs themselves provide valuable resources for all women students. Today, women academics need support on the graduate and post-graduate level, much in the same way they used to need support at undergraduate institutions.

If Radcliffe were to establish itself as a national center for women's studies, it would be in a more prominent position to speak out on issues like tenure for women. Functioning more like a graduate school, Radcliffe could again be a center for student activity--although the students would happen to be a few years older.