Exactly I don't know how many people don't pay attention in class then listen to a BarBri lecture from someone who is not going to give them the exam and are surprised that this other professor likely in another state did not address exactly what the professor giving the exam asks on their own personal exam. Not to mention as that article did that just getting these outlines does not teach you how to take a position and analyze it. This is what you need to do in a law school exam and in the real world. Law is not math there is no right answer and in every case you read that got to the Supreme Court there were legitimate arguments on both sides. If you take a torts exam or do a negligence case for example you couldn't just say judge Bob had a duty. Bob breached his duty. Bob's breach resulted in damage that was foreseeable. Bob was damaged. The outline would tell you duty, breach, actual and proximate cause, and damages are the elements of negligence, but that is not going to be helpful. The job of a lawyer is to analyze and argue how those elements either existed and apply them to a certain fact pattern.
You will learn how to analyze and argue the different positions by actually reading the cases, understanding the reasoning, and listening to your professor for an hour and fifteen minutes and being able to figure out the answer they are hiding during class, then putting a few hours into your outline. Wait that would take time and I can't facebook for an hour and fifteen minutes! Sadly yes that is the case and it is quite possible I am just not that cool, but nothing very important on my facebook, phone, g-chat, twitter etc happens in an hour and fifteen minutes. Maybe that is why I pay attention and if you are that cool it won't matter that you are paying 100K to get straight C's in law school