YET SOME important functions, namely admissions and financial aid, will continue to be administered separately.

Horner believes, however, that admitting women is a task that should be shared by Harvard and Radcliffe so that the Faculty will feel responsible for the education of women.

"The Faculty don't see women as potentially taking their chairs," Horner said in an April interview. "It's not that they don't think women are bright, but it's an attitude that will lead them to make certain decisions inadvertently. The Faculty has got to understand and take seriously the education of women, but it's difficult if they don't know anything about these students."

Thus, Horner has geared her efforts this year towards educating the Faculty about the women it is in turn responsible for educating. For example, this year marked the first time that a standing committee worked closely with the Radcliffe Admissions Committee. Horner feels that if anything helps dissolve myths about Radcliffe students, Faculty involvement of this nature will do it because for the first time, Harvard professors and administrators at least know what sorts of women are in the Radcliffe applicant pool.

The problem is that Radcliffe itself does not know that much about the women it has admitted. A college which was noted for its familial-type of atmosphere seems to have been markedly unprofessional about keeping track of its students. As far as Horner is concerned, "There is no justification for Radcliffe unless we can speak authoritatively about them and about their educational and living experience."

While Horner thinks in terms of one undergraduate body, she also believes that women have special needs which require separate attention. She has talked on many occasions this year about support structures within the larger structure," terminology which she acknowledges has been damaging because for many people it connotes an inferior status of women. But she maintains both that "the specific needs of women are not the same as those of men, nor are they necessarily applicable to all women," and that "recognizing special needs is not to say that they're second class."

The new office combining Admissions, Financial Aid and Women's Education is the structure by which Horner proposes to do this. It is not meant to replicate any current administrative post within the University, Horner emphasizes, but to see that "existing structures are used as they were supposed to be." Presumably it will function as a clearing house and expediter -- what Horner has called a "support structure" -- for women. Its concurrent purpose is to collect the data and conduct the research which will not only allow it to serve the needs of women at Harvard but which will also form the basis for subsequent policy decisions regarding the Harvard-Radcliffe relationship.

Some of the questions of immediate interest include why women tend to cluster in a limited number of concentrations (notably Social Relations and History and Literature), what the effects of coresidential living have been, and what the differences are in the educational experiences of "non-traditional students" -- blacks, white ethnics and transfers.

Horner maintains that this office is intrinsically important, no matter what the future holds for Radcliffe. But in fact, Alberta B. Arthurs, the office's dean, will assume a post next Fall which may well be critical in deciding the question of merger: whether it is "Radcliffe" or some other body, there is a strong feeling that an advocate group for women at Harvard must exist. If this new office proves effective, it will probably be the only Radcliffe administrative structure to survive total merger. As Horner herself said last month, "The existence of a separate corporation gives women more clout but is irrelevant if good alternative structures exist." Essentially this office represents the "unfinished business" mentioned prior to signing the 1971 contract.

In a sense, Matina Horner has run a one-woman show this past year, albeit inconspicuously in comparison to her predecessor, Polly Bunting. It has been a year of beginnings on many fronts. And it remains to be seen whether the momentum leading toward merger has really been halted or whether it has merely been channeled into areas which are preconditions for merger. How the theory translates into practice is the biggest question now facing Radcliffe.