My recollection is that seniors who could get single rooms stayed on campus, and those that could not lived off campus. It was so much more convenient to live on campus, and the homes the seniors rented off campus were pretty dumpy, just like 610 N. Buchanan. The drinking age was 18 for beer and wine (we came in just under the wire!) so there was not much effort to curb on campus drinking. That changed greatly when the drinking age increased to 21 -- the university has much greater liability for underage drinking and so has to crack down. I know Georgetown is also frequently cracking down on its campus partying, and the tensions between Georgetown seniors living in the neighborhood and local residents is legendary. So, Duke is not unusual.
By the way, the 3 year residency requirement is a cash cow for the university. Your student's experience is consistent with other anecdotes I have heard about empty dorm rooms because the campus is now so boring that social life has by and large relocated off campus. That means that the University is losing a source of money and one of the reasons I believe Duke turned a blind eye to Durham's policy of harassing off campus students.
Interesting reasoning on Duke "turning a blind eye." Could very well be the case.
My student is not a partyer - matter of fact, there is still too much of that on campus as far as the student is concerned! LOL. Engineers! If it doesn't involve x's and n's it can't possibly have any redeemable value ;) [You are the exception, LB :)]
I forgot. Yes, I do believe the "liability factor" plays a giant factor in what the University does and does not do.
As far as the "cash cow" is concerned.... with all the electronic gear power-stripped and surge-protected into that dorm room, I'm not so sure who is coming out ahead!!