Law School Discussion

So, I took my Civ Pro exam a few weeks ago, and I just. can't. let. it. go.  I know, I know - don't think about exams after they're done...I'm well aware of that mantra; however, one question is just sticking with me, and I feel like my exam probably hinges on it because the other questions were pretty straightforward, so this is going to be the one that separates the class. If you feel like flexing your Civ Pro muscle, take a look at the below.

OK, basically the problem is this: A (from NY), B (from NY), and C (from IL) sue D in NY federal court. The cause of action is state law, but in order to make the state claim, they're going to rely on federal law regarding what can and can't be sold between states. D then countersues both A, B, and C together (purely a state law matter) and A individually (for an amount that exceeds $75k). Does the federal court have subject-matter jurisdiction over D's claims?

I thought and thought about this one, and basically what I came up with was this:
-D's claim against A alone is fine in federal court due to diversity. Fairly straightforward (correct me if I'm wrong here).
-D's claim against ABC together hinges on a couple things (since no subject matter jurisdiction can be had either by 1331 (federal question) or 1332 (diversity)):
     -D's claim must be a compulsory counterclaim under Rule 13.
     -If it is compulsory, and there is SMJ over the original claim by ABC against D, then there is automatically supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim
     -Thus, the analysis I did was two parts: first, is there federal SMJ over the original claim by ABC (b/c of federal ingredients), and second, is the counterclaim compulsory?
     -If yes to both, then SMJ over the counterclaim; if no to either, no SMJ

Any thoughts on other ways SMJ could work? I've considered this for a while and can't come up with any other potential reasons that SMJ is proper on the counterclaim by D against ABC.

Help!

First, some basic info. LSAT=172, GPA=4.0 (graduated last spring). I opted to work for a couple of years before attending law school, and I'm currently employed by a large global firm as a consultant. Well-rounded college activities list, I think (hope?).

Now, several questions that, quite frankly, I just don't have much of a clue on and I would love some opinions. Feel free to answer any or all of them.

1. All else equal, would it be better to attend a highly-ranked school and rank, say, in the top third, or to attend a tier twoish school and rank very highly? Or does it kind of depend on where you want to work and the nature of the work you want to do?

2. Does anybody get scholarships for law school that aren't need-based? The one conversation I ever had with a law advisor during undergrad made it sound like the prospects for merit-based scholarships are slim to none.

3. I'm working 60-70 hours a week...should I be expecting to ramp up that time committment for law school?

4. Would attending law school part-time be looked upon poorly?

As I said, any opinions would be greatly appreciated!