I didn't make an assumption that "everyone in the part-time class has lesser abilities." I made an assumption that it would be easier to get top grades in the part-time section than in the full-time section.
And maybe real-world accomplishments and experiences speak more to a person's ability than LSAT/GPA. Whether you are right is irrelevant to my statement. LSAT/GPA are by far the most important factors in admissions, and part-time programs have lower requirements for LSAT and GPA. Students at Georgetown Part-time are all quite accomplished, I'm sure. That does not change the fact that the scores for the part-time section are lower than the full-time section. Most part-timers can get into a better school than they would otherwise because of the lower admissions requirements for part-time programs.
And honestly, do you really feel that you would have that six-figure job if UNLV did rank, and your rank was oh, say, "Top 40%" from a low-tier 2?
Do I honestly feel that? The answer to that would have been yes before the recent recession. I know at least 5 people who are making such salaries and they graduated from UNLV, low-tier 2 notwithstanding. Yes, LSAT/GPA are the most important factors in admissions; I'm not arguing otherwise. However, you then said that the part-time students are "lesser competition." That implies that you think part-timers lack the intellectual capabilities as the full-timers. That may have not been your intention, but one could easily infer that. Oh and since you acknowledge that law-school grades are typically lower for part-timers, then why do you still deem it fair that the part-timers are lumped with the full-timers? After all, you did say that you'd be pissed if you were lumped with the part-timers. Just curious.
I bet you those 5 people who got the 6 figure salaries were in the top 10%, not just top third.