I always compare learning in the way the cheating student did to eating food that someone ELSE chewed up and spat out for you. Who would do THAT? What kind of disease did that person have? (sarc) Doing that .. you always have to trust in the person or persons who have digested the thing FOR you. What did they leave out? What was unnecessarily emphasized? What political or other spin was arbitrarily or gratuitously put on the material? ETC
Personally, pre-masticated ANYTHING is unappealing to me.
I know this for a fact because only ONCE did I read the ‘notes’ on material I was supposed to ‘get’.
The notes were excessively arid, bloodless, abbreviated and in no way fully conveyed what the author said and were not expressed as well as the author had done. Much was lost. The original text was very RICH and had a depth and perspective (not to mention masses of additional information) that did not appear in the 'notes'. When I DID read the original text, I thanked myself heartily!! ALL authors are much more interesting in their OWN words. I am certain that fully HALF of what I call my 'education' was gained and positively enhanced because I read the original text of authors when I could have (but wouldn't) read the 'notes'.
It's endogamous in the nature of notes. Brevity perforce excludes a lot of nuance and detail.