A brief-update: long-time readers of this blog know that I have poked fun at LSAC and their difficult-to-compare data reporting methods for some time now. Varying start dates, compressed eyestrain-o-vision scaling methods, x-axes that are not uniform, changing how students are counted, strong indications of miscalculated year-to-year comparisons...all have come into play one way or another. I won't go through it all again, but suffice it to say it has been a problem.
Why does it matter? For the same reasons the SEC requires accurate data for trading - (some) people (at least) attempt to make informed-decisions based on the data at hand, and accurate market valuation is key to that process, or so I'm told. It does no good to chide people for not "doing their research" when the available information is slanted, or at worst, faulty. Scamdeans and Judges alike may blame "sophisticated consumers" for having the temerity to believe the false-statistics generated by the Cartel, as blaming the victim is easier than instituting real reform. Law School Transparency did not arise in a vacuum, nor did the troubles of Whittier, TJLS, Valpo, Indiana Tech, the Infilaw schools, Cooley, and others.
In that vein, I do have to commend LSAC for the new data presentation and ability to even run reports over more than a three year time span. This information is clear to the eye and denominated in a way everyone can follow.
Call me cynical, though, but this change strangely comes about after several years of declining applications as have been previously documented. Now that the Cartel has finally had an upswing year in several past years, look at all this new, easy to read information! Clearly, the conclusion is "everything has recovered!" and "buy now!"
But that's the law school "market" for you. As we all know, caveat emptor, 0Ls...