I think it's obviously becoming a less fair system, since the type of preparation available now disproportionately helps affluent applicants who can afford to either take an expensive class or spend inordinate amounts of time preparing on their own. But I'm not sure I buy that the LSAT is becoming a less reliable predictor of 1L grades than it was 5 or 10 years ago. It's never been perfect, anyway.

I imagine there'll be a scored writing section a few years down the road. It's kinda ridiculous that there isn't, but I guess inertia is tough to overcome.

The percentile ranking for each achieved scaled score has changed very little from June 1991 to the present, even with the advent and development of prep classes and home study resources.

As for affording a prep class, to some degree yes it'll give you an edge, but the classes are no guarantee that you will do well. What you do outside of class with your study / practice time is what makes the biggest difference. The classes provide the foundations / concepts / techniques / etc. but you must implement them with practice and review on your own to build up your skills.

The majority of the basics can now be found in the PS bibles and in the SuperPrep book (very affordable, and available for free use at many libraries) if you are discipled enough to study on your own and keep yourself on track.

LSAC already looked into and did a lot of work developing and trying out a new writing sample type that was intended to become a scored writing sample and they abandoned the idea after years of testing and development.

It won't lose its importance. Granted it is not perfect, but it is a better predictor than GPA. GPA is too widely influenced by major and undergrad. Being able to spend money on classes helps, but the test is still somewhat limited on natural ability. I'd say the most important aspect to doing well is being able to read quickly.