What law school year "works" best?

Orin Kerr here over at The Volokh Conspiracy notes and comments upon this National Law Journal article on how some "elite" law schools dean are reacting to the new 1L Harvard Law School curriculum.  I will have a lot to say about the new HLS curriculum in future posts, but I could not resist noting this remarkable quote from Stanford Law School Dean Larry Kramer:

"The first year is the one year that works," he said. "It is rather bizarre that, in general, law schools have focused on reforming the first year when the problems and failures in the curriculum are all in the second and third years."

Wow!  Though surely all three years of law school could benefit from more innovative programming, it is rather stunning that Dean Kramer is so confident that the first year "works" and that all the "problems and failures" are in the second and third years.  I am particularly wondering what evidence he has that first year "works" and what he thinks are the "problems and failures" in second and third years.

In my view, the varied options and opportunities given to 2L and 3L law students — both inside and outside the classroom — help empower law students to make these years "work" for them.  However, 1L year is so tightly scripted, I fear it works well only for the rare souls (i.e., most folks who become law professors) who really enjoy figuring out the puzzles of the common law and the legal histories behind modern legal realities.