Not very encouraging. Isn't it a strength of Harvard that you have a number of different courses to choose from covering different ground?
I wouldn't know, I've only done 1L. The # of courses to choose from wasn't really relevant outside of my one elective, though I did think my elective taught me the most and more than a couple of the required doctrinal 1L classes combined, so there is that. I mean, if some people can get an H in some 1L doctrinal classes after barely showing up, barely doing the reading, and mostly just using somebody's outline, then was the actual semester-long course dedicated to teaching you the BLL (and next to no policy or theory) really worth sitting through? My opinion is no.
tomwatts has probably struck upon some of it. I went straight through, so my comparison point is undergrad, and undergrad was way better than law school intellectually in every single way for me. I'd probably be somewhat less critical if I had taken time off, first. Part of it, too, was that if lecture was sorta useless** in undergrad then I just wouldn't go, whereas in 1L I felt pressured to actually go to every class (and professors notice if you don't) even when I knew I wasn't gaining anything from it. This won't be an issue in 2L & 3L, so I expect that to be a lot better.
**Note, by useless I don't mean not relevant to the exam. A class is useful to me if I'm learning anything at all, even if it's not relevant to the exam.
I should also note that I was happy socially and happy doing activities. I'm really just commenting about the school part.