No, not move-in; we’re not quite there yet.

It’s that time of year when college presidents and student affairs administrators live in fear of a firm based in Framingham, MA.

Actually, the Princeton Review is unnerving all year-round, but the annual “party school rankings” are chief among the Princeton products that make student affairs administrators awake at 3 a.m.

The party school rankings are very detailed. There’s the top “jock” schools, the top institutions for hard liquor and the top places for fraternity and sorority life. These are all combined into one list that produces a “Best of Show,” of sorts, of partying. Administrators of frequently top-ranking schools seek to draw attention to other aspects of their campus life and academics, and sigh a bit in relief when their institution slips down the list. The local media isn’t always helpful. Students often seem to take a different tack on a “good” Princeton party ranking. Perennial “stone-cold” sober campus Brigham Young University, on the other hand, won their title for the 12th year in a row.

It’s the same every time, but rather agonizing all the same, especially for administrators at institutions that are perpetually topping the list.

At the same time, there’s the very real issue of safety on campus, and how far campus administrators can, or should go to keep students safe. Case in point: Alcohol Related Deaths Could Impact Student Privacy. The University of Kansas is considering a new policy: If an RA or administrator suspects alcohol use, they can enter the student’s room without warning.

What do you think of this policy? What are your policies regarding suspected alcohol use? And finally — if you feel like talking — what are your thoughts on the “party school” rankings?

FERPA is, of course, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which attempts to establish the situations in which student records can or cannot be disclosed by an institution of higher education. Previous FERPA rules were restrictive in favor of student privacy, and somewhat vague as well. Institutions and parents sometimes found the rules binding and confusing. Colleges and universities were reluctant to release student information inappropriately, thus violating FERPA.

The revision follows 120 comments from higher education associations, institutions and other interested parties. As a result, the more confusing parts of FERPA have been clarified, and the new take on the law allows institutions a bit more leeway with regard to individual circumstances. In the first incarnation of the law, information was only to be disclosed in an “emergency” and this circumstance was narrowly defined. This definition has been stricken. Now institutions can disclose student information “if there is an articulable and significant threat to the health or the safety of the student or other individuals.” Administrators have more latitude also, when they decide which records to release and to whom this information should be given. Tragedies, such as the Virginia Tech shootings, may have prompted these clarifications, and the greater ability of institutions to manage troubling situations without violating FERPA. The law also covers issues such as accessibility of directory information, the use of Social Security numbers and the release of academic records. The regulations took effect January 8. The US Department of Education has provided a guide on FERPA 2.0.