Of COURSE the night students in the top 10 my year are not, with one exception I know of, people who worked 40 hrs/week. And I know a bunch of 'em. Some were people who worked, but far less. How much this individual or that one worked is hardly the point: if there was any variance in credit-load or work-commitment, there was not a level playing field. Ex- PT students in the day section (those who dropped crim in their first year)- they went PT feeling it would give them an advantage, and speaking with a knowledge of their ranks, so it did.

Now, this does not mean it is "easier" to be in the night section or PT. By and large, most night students have work commitments that make law school that much more difficult- but not all do. Many students do law school at night to get JDs- very few day students accept this as their goal. While I recognize that this is a generalization, I know alot of students from all sections, and this simply is my experience.

The larger point is that any system with built-in inequality, which compares two unlike things to one another, is flawed. I don't think you can remedy such inequalities by changing night student grades or anything, because that doesn't cut down on the abuseability factor. Honestly, the only way to make everything equal would be the abolition of Sec. 3 (ex- Hastings does not have one). Of course, that will never happen for several reasons, some of them excellent. I only hope employers will look critically at our resumes to evaluate grades in light of work- and credit-load.

- FT 3L