PT v FT at Kellogg or Booth

I'm 32 and after graduating an OK law school (top 30 but nothing special) I decided to go into finance in an area I had studied significantly in law school (dodd-frank and otc derivatives). Decision not to practice law was largely due to the fact that I would have ended up in commercial litigation, which I didn't enjoy, rather than finance law. Ended up with a BO job with a BB in OTC space, but got promoted in 1 1/2 years to FO--while it was trading, it just was basically reinvesting client collateral and managing some FX exposure, nothing very complex/interesting. Spent a couple years there, earned my CFA charter, and then left that for a risk job at another BB, again in the OTC space. Now thinking about going back to get MBA. Would like to stay in OTC space but hopefully on a good trading desk(would prefer buy-side), but have also heard great things about management consulting and would consider that. From Chicago and have family so thinking Booth or Kellogg. I'm debating between the full time and part time programs. I would prefer the PT, but hear it has a terrible stigma(basically it is for those who couldn't get into FT). I was wondering about my chances at FT as an older candidate and what's the true difference between PT and FT in terms of job prospects.

Stats

-GMAT:770 (49q, 45v)
-UGPA: 3.67 in Econ from an ok flagship state school(3.45 when considering grades from the school I transferred in from)
-Law School GPA: 3.35 from top 30.
-CFA Charter
-Published paper on OTC derivatives regulation
-Volunteer: Just now starting tutoring in an adult literacy program.
-Nothing to add from a diversity point of view (White Male from US)
-Leadership: Only work related. Just developing and taking ownership of different initiatives at work. No direct reports. Letters of rec will emphasize this.