I'm a 1L, so take this with a grain of salt. Maybe I just got great professors or something. But a few things in my experience have completely contradicted what I've read here:
1. Briefing cases doesn't seem to be a big deal, and the case method doesn't seem horrible/dominating. I've never been assigned more than 3 cases for a given class. I'd say that on average, I read 1.5 cases per class. People complain incessantly about briefing, and half the advice on here is some version of "briefing's a waste of time." In my experience, briefing's just a way to jot down a few notes so you remember the context in which a rule was generated. Its function is more heuristic than anything else. Briefing's not taking me any longer than simply drilling the rule would... in a way, the story of the case often makes the rule easier to remember.
As a side note, I know that some people take briefing too far. E.g. highlighting cases with 6 different colors like LSC advises seems i_n_s_a_n_e to me. Why would you do that? Facts section is a couple sentences at most, procedural history/judgment probably 1, and the rule? Half the time telling yourself that the rule is in only one sentence that you can just highlight is flat out wrong. I mean, I've seen kids going through the case and highlighting the word "plaintiff" blue every time it appears and "defendant" (or the corresponding name) green. How the hell is that supposed to help anyone?
2. Are supplements really necessary? E & E has helpful problems, but why do so many people rely primarily on hornbooks and commercial outlines? The casebooks I'm using are about 50% cases and 50% explanatory material and history. I focus on the explanatory material and context, then only read the case to the extent mentioned above. Every time I've looked at a hornbook or something later, it's basically reiterated what the casebook said. Why should I read a hornbook's description of the Rule Against Perpetuities when there's one in the book already? Granted, the one in the book may be inferior, etc., but that depends on the specific casebook, not casebooks in general. If your casebook sucks, then grab a hornbook, by all means...
3. My professors do NOT "hide the ball." They focus on telling us what we need to know and how we have to apply it. In fact, my Property class is geared almost entirely towards working through problems and policy questions from old exams. My civ pro teacher hammers away at "take home points" that we must know and gives us an old exam question at the end of each unit. Contracts is more focused on historical development/context and, like Property, basic principles and terminology. All of my professors have been more than willing to say what they want on an exam (some want a concise, direct answer, others want you to use a problem as an opportunity to write down every possible interpretation you can come up with).
Again, maybe I'm misinterpreting what's going on, or maybe I've gotten lucky, but things don't seem as bad as this board made me feel. I don't understand people who read thousands of pages in preparation for law school (Getting to Maybe, PLS, etc.) and are now spending all their time reading commercial materials... in certain cases, yeah, but as an overall strategy it seems like a bit much.