Accordingly, I think that many applicants, but specifically those of us on TLS with an acute awareness of this sort of stuff, no longer trust schools when they tout favorable outcomes without supplying the data to back it up.
I fully agree with you on this and the mistrust is warranted.
if your school really only has around 35 students per entering class, I don’t think that it would be that difficult to gather this data.
I am with you on this as well. Realistically, we just can't do it all at once. It seems like getting the core employment data is the first and most important step so we are doing this now. A 0L survey would be really interesting as well and might be something we can consider next year.
I spent another year studying with a tutor after that and finally broke 170, and then spent several more months on my own and got into the mid-170s
Here is the point where we see different parts of the elephant. You previously raised the point about the opportunity cost of "time". I think that it is more important to some applicants than you realize . . . particularly non-traditional students, such as veterans who are trying to make a complete transition from service to civilian employment. Waiting another year and paying for a tutor is a lot to ask. For some, if they qualify for full benefits, they also get housing and living expenses, but only if they are enrolled full-time. They may not have the "luxury" of sitting out a "gap" year while they study for the LSAT and pay for a tutor out of personal funds on the hope that their future scores will make a significant difference. I don't doubt . . . and am impressed with your personal achievement on the LSAT. However, if it was as easily "learnable" as you opine, the statistical distribution of LSAT scores would be skewed entirely in the 170 to 180 range. It is much more likely that you have a skill set that is not the norm and with proper tutoring your potential was realized. This is just not the case with the vast majority of applicants.