Another thing to think about: people argue that when you can study for the LSAT and significantly increase your score, that shows that the testing is flawed, because it doesn't assess your raw innate ability. I think this is mistaken. First of all, EVERY possible type of test will have this problem, because you can study for all types of tests. Second of all, it does show something when someone studies and improves their score to the best of their ability: it shows that they can prepare for and ace a standardized test. These types of people probably will be able to prepare for and ace other types of tests, including real life "tests" that you find in legal work. I would venture to guess that they same people that figured out how to prep for the LSAT and aced it would be able to figure out how to prep for their first trial/deal and ace that, too.
now that is a good point for the most part which is why I have said all along that there is some use to the LSAT the way it is (though arguably the LSAT could be more useful if tweaked). There is a catch though. Priviliged people, like many of us, can afford a lot of outside help that non-priviliged can't (i.e. Testmasters). I took TM myself! If you believe these courses help substantially more for MOST people than going it alone, like I do, than we have a huge advantage in our parents/trustfund/etc.
I may have been on par with that inner-city, fought his way out of the ghetto, URM before... but I can destroy him/her on the LSAT now since my parents dished out $1400 for testmasters while he/she could only afford a couple of cheap books.
Sad, but a reality.
I think the reason some people argue the LSAT is flawed because it is prep-able is because ideally GPA measures work ethic while the prep-test measures raw logical ability. In practice, LSAT is starting to measure both work ethic and raw ability (in my opinion) since it employs so much preparation as well as the limits of your ability in speed, accuracy, and logic (if you are fast enough to finish).
A couple points on what you said:
1. I don't think that a class helps; my mom told me she would pay for anything I needed, I got a couple books that were a waste and the three preptest packets (20 dollars a peice on Amazon)
2. How would changing the format change the supposed advantage of these 1400 dollar classes
3. And the final point I would like to make is about this idea that so many applicants have trust funds or come from wealthy families. Maybe it's because I grew up in the hills, but most people I know who have excelled in ug/law school are not silver spoons; they are upper middle class perhaps and ussually have at least one educated parent. Spoiled children, in my experience have little drive, but that is my opinion from the few trust fund kids I knew growing up.