To your second, we've observed that including PT numbers hasn't stopped some schools from rising. It's still only one factor, but at schools that have very large PT classes relative to their FT classes (Fordham has 160 PT and 320 FT students), a drop in the rankings is more likely, unless the school can raise their PT numbers, or make up for the disparity by raising peer ranking scores. In other words, it isn't impossible for a school with a PT program to rise, as Loyola did. It might indicate that the FT/PT numbers disparity is a lot smaller, or that the school improved measurably in some other category, or even that it gamed the rankings blatantly, the way BLS did last year.
That makes sense, but how did Gtown maintain its T14 status when it has 450 full-time students and 132 part-time students in each class (22% of each class) versus Fordham's 320/160 (33% of each class)? Shouldn't it have experienced a proportional drop in its score? GULC's PT admissions %iles are also much lower than FT...
I'm not GULC trolling, I seriously just don't get it.
That said, I don't think a -4 drop in the rankings means anything. Fordham is, and always will be, number 3 in the Big Apple (and with a fantastic location, mind you).
EDIT: Also, we New Yorkers (and all East Coasters) should probably go to sleep soon ^-^