I had to take some literature classes in high school, and had a truly exceptional teacher who facilitated great and interesting discussions. Really opened up my mind and I only later realized how lucky I was.

Those summaries always existed, in the past you could buy them as little books for most of the classic literature we read. Thing is they were always the same trite points even back then.

Our teacher would see right through any BS, but never call it out directly. Instead there would be 1 precise and nicely asked follow-on question or even just asking their opinion on a talking point. Not details, but a regular discussion question.

If someone hadn't read the book they'd stutter and grasp at straws at that point and everyone knew they hadn't actually read it.

On the other hand if you had read the book the answer was usually pretty easy, and often not what the common summaries contained as talking points.

So cheating not only didn't work, the few regular cheaters we had in our class (everybody knew who those were) actually suffered badly.

Only in hindsight did I realize that this is not the normal experience. Most other literature classes in fact do just focus on or repeat the same trite points, is what I've heard from many others.

It takes a great teacher to make cheating not "work" while making the class easy, intellectually stimulating and refreshing at the same time.

You must have been blessed with great teachers.

My experience was the exact opposite. I loved reading as a child. But I learned very fast in school that my "own opinion" on books results in bad grades, while reading and reiterating the "official summary" results in OK or even good grades. Like you say, the summaries existed long before AI. It is what the teacher and students make of the class.