<p>I agree with Hugcheck’s assessment that back in the old days, we students were supposed to first learn what those experts who had studied the material for years had to say. As undergrads, we were not considered learned enough to be expected to make our own analyses with any reliability. That’s why we did RESEARCH papers–we found out what other people had already discovered, proven, or theorized and reported it back, albeit with our own assessment of which arguments we preferred and why we thought they best fit.</p>
<p>Garland, it did indeed happen as I reported, and for the reason stated above. We were supposed to study the existing literary criticism and learn from it. We were not supposed to be critics yet ourselves, though we were permitted to agree or disagree with a critic, or synthesize existing ideas. A truly original idea was suspect, because supposedly smarter people than I had studied the work and never thought of the idea I did, hence it must have some flaw even if the prof couldn’t find it off the top of her head.</p>