No law student I know has ever complained that law school classes were too practical and relevant to real-life practice. LOL at even the thought. I'm actually skeptical that Stanford's curriculum is all that practical, but if it is, that would be a huge plus, not a negative.
I don't want to kill myself learning about how lawyer A should have argued an 1843 property case. I'd rather think/talk about and discuss the larger issues involved in property law in general--theory behind it, comparison to other legal systems, etc. For instance, I find it very interesting to consider hypotheticals at the margins and really nail down the doctrine we're talking about--and to consider how the doctrine/law could have been different or is in fact applied differently. That sort of education is valuable in itself and can provide a great foundation for more practical learning on the job.
I think that's essentially what goes down at Yale and to a lesser extent at Harvard as well.
Perhaps other Stanford students are like you and don't want to engage in discussions like that. They'd rather simply understand how if they were lawyer A in the 1843 case, they should take approach X. That's something I'm trying to figure out.
BTW, I'm not saying I want a normative discussion--do you think A should apply or B--and then a bunch of policy argument garbage (which I actually heard happens in a lot of classes at SLS, unfortunately).
And please, don't reference my post history. I am really, really strongly considering SLS right now, and I just want to get a better understanding of how the courses are there (especially compared to HLS).