Apology if I offended any one. Is there any way to rewrite Why does property law involve more memorization and regurgitation, and less legal analysis, than other 1L courses? to make it on topic?
I don't think so.
First of all: don't worry; unless there's a deleted rant somewhere, I doubt you offended anyone. We don't take offense when people post one off-topic question.
The biggest problem is that it's not really a legal question: it's a question about teaching methods. The reason that law-school professors teach it in that way is presumably because they've found it to be most effective; why that is the case may be on-topic at academia.stackexchange.com if written with enough detail. Note that I don't participate in that site, so I'm not certain exactly how much detail would be needed, or if it would still be too opinion-based for that site regardless of how much detail it has.
If it were a specific question about the history of property law and how it got to the state that it is today where so much memorization is required, that might be on-topic here, but the question would need to be specific about which aspects of property law it's referring to, which would require having the answer to the question in the previous paragraph.
The question as it stands probably is not answerable with reference to actual facts as opposed to beliefs, except perhaps by a law school professor who has reached the same conclusion and can say why he finds the conclusion valid. A more answerable question could be raised about property law vs. some other area of law – constitutional law, for example: is it true that legal questions about property are more dependent on specific facts, compared to constitutional law? While I think it is true (and there is even an explanation for why it is true), actually showing that it is true would likely be very difficult. The minor flaw in the textbook is that it makes a prejudicial assumption about people's undergraduate educations, and seems to imply that this is a fact about property law but not every other area of law. Your question presupposes the validity of a bunch of implicit claims: you could question the presuppositions.