When alumnae wrote $72 million worth of checks payable to "Radcliffe College," they had no warning their money would end up in Harvard's bank account--through the new Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study.

Before Tuesday's historic announcement that the 120-year-old institution would merge with Harvard, Radcliffe had been nearing the close of a seven-year, $100 million capital campaign. Though, as recently as two weeks ago, the campaign had a significant distance to go before reaching its goal, Radcliffe officials insisted they had several major gifts in the works.

But now the University will have to explain the switch to donors who have been kept in the dark about Radcliffe's plans for the last year. Officials from both institutions have said they are cautiously optimistic that donors will understand, but they're still waiting for the final verdict.

The retraction of donations is "certainly hypothetically possible," said Radcliffe's Vice President for College Relations Bonnie R. Clendenning.

She noted that when Wheaton College, a women's institution in Norton, went coeducational in 1988 immediately after finishing its capital campaign, alumnae pulled some $400,000 of recently donated funds.

"It was terrible timing," Clendenning said.

Now, Radcliffe faces the unenviable task of stepping up fundraising for the new Institute while simultaneously explaining to alumnae, like Adeline Naiman '46, that their alma mater is no more.

"I just don't see where the intimate connection is going to come from for the giving," Naiman said.

For many long-time donors to Radcliffe, giving money to Harvard--even through a Radcliffe institute--is a hard pill to swallow.

"A lot of people don't trust Harvard. Harvard has a very large endowment, and Harvard doesn't spend it voluntarily on things that we would like," said Naiman, who has given annually to Radcliffe. "When all of us die off and have no more wills to bequeath things in, will [Harvard] stop caring about this [Institute]?"

Radcliffe and Harvard will together have to convince older alumnae, many of whom have the most money to give, that their gift will be a long-lasting legacy. In Tuesday's press conference, Harvard President Neil L. Rudenstine noted that any institute for advanced study must sustain itself primarily through donations.

"We're still under the gun to raise just as much money," Clendenning said.

The chairman of the Radcliffe Board of Trustees, Nancy-Beth G. Sheerr '71, has said Radcliffe will still strive for at least $100 million in gifts to help make its new Institute run. However, no decision has been made about whether the effort will be billed as the completion of the independent Radcliffe campaign or subsumed into a larger Harvard effort.

"That is an unresolved issue, and we will need to talk about it," Sheerr said. "We will hopefully--and I'm sure [we will]--complete this capital campaign successfully. It might be extended and enlarged."

But with no more Radcliffe graduates, an alumnae pool will naturally decrease over time, and the obvious candidates for giving will begin to disappear over the years.

Rudenstine said the University has said it will appropriate some its own funds to offset any dips in donation over the next few years. Rudenstine said he is confident that by then a steady stream of new supporters will have emerged.

"I think they've run a good ship," he said. "Many new donors will be interested in this kind of institution."

But Mary Maples Dunn, incoming interim head of Radcliffe, said specifics for short-term development are still up in the air.

"For fundraising, we now have a process," said the former president of Smith College. "But we don't have definite agreements. We don't have a detailed agreement as to who goes after which classes and so on"--no small matter, since Harvard is currently barred from soliciting funds from Radcliffe's pre-1977 graduates.

Radcliffe will now be able to draw on the fundraising prowess of Harvard's development office and Rudenstine himself, who said that "the University will begin aggressively raising funds for the Institute right away."

At Tuesday's press conference, Rudenstine jokingly invited the assembled reporters and photographers to make donations immediately following the event.

And Radcliffe officials said, so far, the announcement seems to be encouraging enthusiastic alumnae to take out their checkbooks.

"We've had a lot of gifts and a lot pledges come in the last few days," said Radcliffe spokesperson Michael A. Armini.

Armini noted that one seven-figure gift that had been "in the pipeline" several weeks ago has been finalized since the announcement.

He added that alumnae have been reassured by the knowledge that restricted gifts given during Radcliffe's college days cannot be redirected.

"They definitely cannot be spent for another purpose," he said. "That's something that people don't have to worry about."

Student callers for the Radcliffe phonathon said they have been told to come to work as usual this week.

"We're making calls for Radcliffe--it doesn't really matter what you call it," said Mary A. Piscitello '01, co-director of the Radcliffe College Fund phonathon. "Obviously, we'll be discussing what's happening with alumnae."

Certainly, those alumnae who supported Tuesday's agreement said their peers will be easily convinced to change their giving habits.

"I think with a little of hoopla they'll be more than willing to give to Harvard and not Radcliffe [College]," said longtime critic of Radcliffe College Claire K. Lipsman '45, who backed Tuesday's decision.

Many alumnae said the decision could not have come as a surprise to Radcliffe's most recent donors.

"I don't think alumnae were under any misconception about what they were giving to," said Charlotte H. Armstrong '49, president of the Harvard Board of Overseers. "They knew they weren't giving to a traditional, four-year women's college."