I feel like I'm arguing with a brick wall. I will try to respond clearly so you can not misconstrue my statements this time.
1. 5 people that make 100,000 from UNLV. I'm sure this is true. Were these people in the median of the class? My general point (so don't argue at the periphery) is that ranking is counterproductive after a certain point. My school tells us not to put class rank on our resume if outside the top 30%. You claimed that your job prospects suffered because you were not assigned a ranking. I think, more likely, it is the fact that in this economy top 40% is not quite good enough from a tier 2.
2. My initial reference to GPA/LSAT scores had to do with the cost/benefit analysis one should undertake before going part-time. You complained of all the disadvantages in an earlier post. I pointed out that there were good things about being a part-timer, like lower admissions standards (and thus a higher-ranked school).
3. I did say part-timers were lesser competition. Maybe a false assumption. But I NEVER said that grades were lower for part-time students. In fact, I've consistently said that the curve should ensure that grades are the SAME for part-time students. I simply said that it would be easier to obtain good grades against lesser competition.
4. To summarize (and satisfy your curiosity): Grades should not be lower for part-time students because they are on the same 3.0 curve as full-time students (This is why it is fair for you to be "lumped in" with full-timers). I think it would be harder to get good grades in the full-time section (This is why I would be mad that someone that got the same good grades, but in an easier section, would have the same class rank as me). These are different concepts, and are in no way contradictory.
Did you ever stop to think that I "misconstrued" your statements - which I don't think I did - because they weren't clearly written the first time? Regarding putting your rank on your resume, many employers ask you for your "class standing," even if you're outside of the coveted top third. If employers were only interested in the top third, then they would simply say "only top third need apply" or "top third preferred." On more than a few occasions, a legal employer asked me to disclose my standing even though I was unable to do so: I had to have the Registrar's office send a letter to such employers, explaining to them their ranking policy of not assigning ranks to those outside of the top third.
Again, I agree with your premise that the grades should be the same among the classes because it's the same curve. And in response to dashrashi, yes, there are more curve-less classes available to the day students (Law Review, Society of Advocates, writing courses, externships, this one legal research class I took, which wasn't curved, etc.). It's a fact that there exist more class offerings for the day students. I am quite sure I mentioned this earlier, but it was awhile ago, so it was probably lost in the shuffle. This could be an important factor that could account for the discrepancy, and like you acknowledged, dashrashi, there could be others. However, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all of the variables that could account for the ranking differences.
Plus, if it truly is harder to obtain good grades in the day section - and that is highly debatable - then you're acknowledging that it's actually unfair to be ranked with the "easier" night section. After all, if it were a fair system, you shouldn't be pissed.