Unfortunately that is what i am starting to see. It's kind of sad when someone with a 2.5 and then a 165 on the LSAT is getting into a top law school. Alot of these people, no work experience, very few extracirculars, and because of that 165 they are getting in. Def putting way to much emphasis on the LSAT these days.
Remember, the LSAT is the only factor in your entire application that is specifically designed for the purpose of predicting your success in law school. It's hard for schools not to recognize that fact. As one author put it: "Your LSAT says you can do the work, your GPA says you will do the work."
Here is my thing about the LSAT, it is a highly subjective test. Just like the SAT, you have questions that really depending on what part of the country you are in, people's speaking and reading skills differ. Take for instance in the south where y'all is used frequently and not so much in the north. Or in the north were pop or soda is used, unlike the south where everything is a coke. When reading sentences or questions, different people can have different ideas about a subject. If the LSAT was based more on Logic games, which i know everyone hates, but it's the questions that have true answers, unlike the reading and logical reasoning where each answer is a subjective interpretation of the author. If you are going to have a test to prove that you are going to be able to do the work, have a test where everyone can come up with the same answer, not just a subjective guess. Also with the LSAT it is supposed to teach the quick thinking that is used in the court room. Well guess what i don't want to be a trial lawyer, so why does a test that measures the response time of a trial, have any impact on someone who doesn't want to be in a courtroom.