My one minor quibble is with the literature component. I agree that a historical survey course is probably more sound for delivering basic historical information and concepts than a course with a narrow focus. But I do not think that a single-author literature course is less sound than a broad literature survey.

If a student takes a "major authors" course on, say, Shakespeare or Jane Austen or Charles Dickens or William Faulkner or Homer, I think that student could come out with a far richer and grounded sense of literary concepts than from an Intro to Lit or Intro to Fiction or historical survey course. And while literary history can easily be taught by focusing on one writer, I think a single-author course can capture far better one aspect of literature too often neglected in broad surveys: individual style and how artistic style changes over the course of a career.

Off-topic: Erin, since you're a George Eliot fan, you might enjoy the article in today's Financial Times in which Eliot offers advice on the financial crisis (specifically "moral hazard") as interpreted by medium John Kay.