Thanks for the comments, but how is it a terrible description of the Socratic Method? What about it was unrealistic or incorrect? Preparation is important for this form of class room instruction. If it's something different than that, what is it, in your opinion? Also, outlining is one of the most important things you can do. Ask anyone whether he/she didn't do one.
From the website: "The professor will ask questions about a case opinion for which the student attempts to respond with answers. Those answers may turn into a barrage of additional questions by the professor, and so on and so forth."
Makes it sound like it's a bunch of random questions, or just MORE questions about other things in the case or... any number of things. And the advice given for how to deal with it is: "be prepared." While both might be accurate, neither is very descriptive or helpful. The socratic method is usually oppositional, usually targeted at exposing underlying assumptions the student isn't aware of, and often intended to produce a self-contradiction. It's not just random questions, and the advice about being prepared is fine as far as it goes, but quite a few students are shocked to learn that thinking requires more than memorizing facts. That's why the socratic method fries some. Being prepared means more than knowing specifics about the case, etc etc... be prepared to argue the case, be prepared by knowing what assumptions underlie key statements, be prepared by __________ (fill in the blank.) "Be prepared" by itself means next to nothing. And finally, sure, outlining is a good idea for most. Everyone's heard that by their second lecture though.