Warning: This isn't very coherent.
I've been teaching full time for 5 years, and previously taught as an adjunct probably for a total of five years, at schools ranging from the the top -- U Texas to the middle, U Houston and Mercer -- and each time I've wondered what it is that I'm supposed to be doing.
This semester, I've taught PR at UH summer school. PR seems to me to be the strangest course to teach (I also teach some of the *other* poorly evaluated courses, overall, in law school, including Property and Civ Pro). I always feel twisted teaching the PR course - students want law and rules, and I do think the skill set of reading rules (statutes, too) is under-taught in most schools, so that has a purpose, but I also use some heavy problem methods, so that the students learn that the rules get you about half way there in real life.
But I never feel satisfied with either approach. The books (there are more PR books than civ pro books, which to me is a profound statement by itself, but I digress) often also exhibit this tension or twistedness, with some ignoring the real world and focusing on policy, with others focusing almost solely on real world issues.
Anyway, just a rant and not a very coherent one at that. I've had the same conversation with myself each time I teach anything -- and whether evaluated well by the students, or not, I hope in a way that I always will, but I also do hope that someday there is a clearer answer....