"On average over many years, you have to have equal income, equal expense," he says.

Huidekoper further notes that if Harvard found itself running deficits proportionately as high as Radcliffe's, it would try to "understand what factors contributed to the deficit" and then "work towards getting back to break[ing] even as soon as possible."

But Ladd says an academic institution might incur a high deficit if it is "making investments to increase revenues in the future."

The Capital Campaign

According to Radcliffe administrators, the current deficit is the result of precisely such an investment--the college's capital campaign.

"The deficit is a planned strategy to draw on the assets of the College," says Lyn Chamberlin, Radcliffe's director of communications. "It's an investment, absolutely."

"A campaign costs money, and we're in the midst of a campaign of large proportions by Radcliffe's standards," Chamberlin adds.

Radcliffe publicly kicked off the campaign last May, but Chamberlin says funds for the campaign were required before that time.

Chamberlin says Radcliffe has been planning the campaign since Linda S. Wilson became president of the college in 1989.

Wilson refused to comment for this article, referring all questions to Chamberlin.

Radcliffe's director of development also could not be reached for comment.

Data from Radcliffe's financial reports are consistent with Chamberlin's assertion that the capital campaign has required significant financial outlays.

From FY 1992 to FY 1993, Radcliffe's expenditures on the capital campaign rose from $29,815 to $512,373. In FY 1995, Radcliffe budgeted $652,268 for the capital campaign.

Radcliffe's overall budget for institutional advancement rose from about $2.5 million in FY 1992 to about $4 million in FY 1995.

While Chamberlin is unsure of how much longer Radcliffe will continue to run deficits, she says "it's time-limited."

"Nobody around here wants a deficit either," she adds.