Visiting fellows, a cadre of scholars, newcourses and stellar resources would convergethrough interdisciplinary studies and pursuits inan effort Radcliffe might consider touting as"advancing society by advancing partnership"between women and men.

The idea--of shedding Radcliffe's undergraduaterole and instead emphasizing studies in gender--isnot new.

The late Mary Ingraham Bunting--the legendaryRadcliffe president who left her porch-light onfor late-night chats with undergraduates--set thestage for Radcliffe's new focus on research byestablishing the now-Bunting Institute in 1960,and proposing to merge with Harvard in 1969.

Former Harvard President Derek C. Bok, inaccepting the 1991 Radcliffe Medal, said he wasnot "convinced of Radcliffe's future as aparticipant in the conduct of undergraduateeducation," and called for Radcliffe "to becomethe world's leading center for study and researchon matters of special concern to women."

Rudenstine makes it clear that he is "not incharge" of shaping Radcliffe, and the progress ofany talks "depends on how Radcliffe sees its ownfuture...[either] under its current rubric orrethinking it in a fundamental way."

Still, in terms of increased collaborationbetween the two institutions, "the capacity [forpartnership] to spring up," no matter whatincarnation Radcliffe assumes, "is very real," hesays.

`The Invisible College'

Radcliffe's exclusive focus on advanced studyand research would end years of confusionsurrounding the institution's stubborn insistenceon being called an undergraduate "college" 21years after it delegated all responsibility forundergraduates to Harvard.

In the pages of campus publications, studentshave been wondering whether or not Radcliffe was"still there" practically since the 1977 agreementwas signed.

Prospective students are especially confused,say admissions officers, who must explain thearcane procedure which admits women to Radcliffeand--"in the blink of an eye," says Director ofAdmissions Marlyn McGrath Lewis '70-'73--enrollsthem in Harvard.

"On the narrow question of whether dualadmissions--this idiosyncratic arrangement--is aplus or a minus," McGrath Lewis says, "I wouldhave to count it not as an asset."

Prospective students are concerned about "wherethey would fit, where they'd belong," shecontinues, noting female undergraduates want tofeel like full citizens--without dividedloyalties.

The bewilderment is still greater amongalumnae, whose understanding of Radcliffe seldomextends beyond the day they graduated.

Claire K. Lipsman '45 goes so far as to suggestthat Radcliffe violates its graduates' trust bysoliciting money under the false pretense of stillbeing a college.

"I didn't catch on until shortly before my50-year reunion that the Radcliffe of yore was nomore," she writes in an opinion piece in theChronicle of Higher Education. "Why did it take meso long?"