My school "teaches to the bar", and our classes have been exactly like the T1 people describe their classes. What it means to "teach to the bar" at my school means they have required nearly every course that covers anything that's on the bar exam. We hardly have any time for electives at all (We're all in 1 of 3 specialty tracks though). The list of requirements nearly mirrors the list of bar exam topics. In fact, we take the second part of property and contracts in the 2nd semester of 2L and the 1st semester of 3L. When I asked why, they told me it was because people do better on the bar when those topics are more fresh. Frankly, its nice that my school isn't leaving me out in the cold on the bar exam. Since passing the bar exam is the only thing that really matters, it's nice to have some extra help. I feel like I'm getting my money's worth.
If a school isn't teaching you how to reason and argue from a variety of perspectives, something is seriously wrong, because that is really the only thing students will fully carry with them into practice. That's really the whole point of law school. We all know from other levels of school that we forget most of the black letter stuff eventually anyway. But, above anything else, if you're school isn't "teaching the bar," I'd ask for my money back pronto.
As far as learning law specific to our state, there hasn't been much and where there is some it's only for illustration. I think the notion that low ranked law schools teach just law from that state is a myth. There's this little thing called the Multi-State portion of the bar exam.