I'm still sort of confused about why you feel the system is so "unfair." From my understanding, part-timers take (almost) all of their classes with other part-timers, and full-timers with full-timers. Therefore, in each individual class, your performance on the exam is curved in relation to your fellow part-timers. If the same 3.0 curve is used for both part-time and full-time sections, the grade breakdown should be very similar for each section. While your GPA upon graduation is compared to the those of full-time students, you earned that GPA competing against fellow part-timers--your peer group. Maybe the top 10% of part-timers are much smarter, or vice versa, but that doesn't change the fact that the top 10% should be essentially the same grade cutoff. Curves are designed to account for differences amongst different sections, and to remedy the exact problem of which you complain.
I already explained it adequately enough. They should keep us ranked only with the part-timers until the VERY END. It ISN'T fair to lump us together with the full-timers, who have more opportunities to excel in law school (I already listed them above), especially since we had for 3 years been ranked with just the part-timers. Trust me, if you were in the part-time program, being ranked with the part-timers, and then suddenly find that your top one-third rank from the first 3 years is lost when lumped together with the full-timers, you would be highly pissed. Being ranked in the top one-third is what gives you a much better opportunity to obtain an attorney job upon graduation and passing the bar. The fact that you achieved that among your real peers (the part-timers) and yet had that taken away from you when suddenly compared to the full-timers (who aren't your peers) is unfair. Period.
Your argument is crap. Everyone, whether it be full-timers or part-timers, has different obstacles. Maybe UNLV should create a separate ranking for students with kids too. And why stop there? There should be a number one in the class with 1 kid, a number one in the class with 2 kids and so on.
Further, part-timers statistically have lower LSATs and GPAs than full-timers. By having a separate ranking system you're essentially saying that UNLV should institute a handicap scheme.
My argument is crap? Your slippery-slope argument is so ridiculous, it's laughable. The obstacles and characteristics I listed are the ones practically EVERY part-time student experiences, and not just a rare obstacle that hardly anyone experiences. And using your number-of-children example: most part-timers do have children, which is not true of the younger, full-time students. So the part-timers share enough characteristics, ones that the full-timers don't have, to consider them a separate peer group. It's unfortunate that you fail to see the true definition of a peer. The full-timers are not my peers simply because they attend the same law school. And do the part-timers take classes with the full-timers? No, they do not. The only time they would is if the part-timers got lucky enough to take a class during the day, and that rarely happens since part-timers are working full time. So why the hell should they be lumped with the full timers when they really are in a class of their own?
About the "statistics" you mention: that again is mostly due to part-timers having LESS time to study than the full-timers, and not due to a "handicap" or inability to do the work. If they were unable to do the work, then why the hell would the law school admit them? To drive their rankings down because these "handicapped" people were unable to pass the bar? I don't think so. BTW, only one of the people in my part-time class failed the bar exam: I and everyone else passed. So we are certainly not "handicapped."
Also, accepting your argument as true, that the part-timers have lower GPA's on average than the full-timers, then my conclusion is correct: namely that a separate, yet equal (5% of the part-time class still gets A's, just like in the full-time class) ranking should be applied. If GPA's are lower among most part-timers, then why shouldn't there be a separate ranking system for them, assuming that this *is* a common, defining trait that is shared equally among the part-timers? This is yet another reason why the part-timers should not be considered "peers" of the full-timers; that is, assuming that your "statistics" are indeed true.
You first said that the full-timers and part-timers equally share obstacles, and then you followed this up by saying that the part-timers still tend to have lower GPA's than the full-timers, which distinguishes them enough to consider them to be separate from the full-timers for peer-classification purposes. You just proved my argument for me, thank you very much.