Here's an update and Brooklyn's explanation: aws_survey_response_&slreturn=1" rel="external nofollow" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202430524801&US_News_looks_into_Brooklyn_L aws_survey_response_&slreturn=1Sounds like Brooklyn clearly gave false data. They try to both justify why they would give false data and then say it was inadvertent (can it really be both? Sound like saying "I didn't steal a car from that guy and crash it, but if I did it was because the guy owed me some money, and anyways it was broke when I got it."
That's cool how you referenced a case.
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.
Cincinnati is actually full-time only
Brooklyn was obviously disingenuous here. Let's not sugar coat this. They know that if they include their part time numbers they will drop in the rankings so they are taking some kind of self-satisfying moral stance on the matter that is convenient for them. They thought they'd get away with reporting only full time numbers and got caught (too late for publication but not too late for public humiliation). These schools have been using the part time/full time thing for financial gain for way too long and it needs to stop. Also, think about how unfair this is to the schools that included part time numbers in their submission(per the instructions from USNews). This looks very bad for Brooklyn...
What they should do is rank Brooklyn last based on a 0.0 GPA/0 LSAT. Then put an asterisk on it. Again, not fair to the other schools who properly report their numbers. If Brooklyn is embarrassed about the numbers of their incoming part-time students then they can change that on their own. They are responsible for it.