I've taken a multitude of undergraduate foreign language courses, and one thing that has always bothered me about the way that they are taught is the great emphasis that is placed on literature classes as a major prerequisite to obtaining a degree. Don't get me wrong. I understand the importance of students being exposed to the literature of the countries whose language they are studying. This is necessary for learning about the culture as well as reading practice. The problem is that literature requirements are so extensive that they impede the learning of grammar.
At the graduate level the situation is somewhat different, but for undergraduates I believe the emphasis should be placed primarily on mastering the language. At my local university, this is done only for the first two years of language study in classes numbered 101, 102, 201 and 202. Once into the the third year, the only options for continued study of the actual language (as opposed to literature and culture) are a grammar, composition, and phonetics course. That's it -- just three classes. And since many students test into the upper level courses, they receive very little grammar background at the university level. Although the advanced courses are taught in the language of study, and papers are assigned to be written in that language, that is simply not enough. It is not uncommon in 400-level classes to observe students making mistakes in very basic grammar or pronunciation, misconjugating to verb to be, for example.
Here is what I suggest as a more appropriate curriculum. First, the first four years of study should be dedicated to the language itself. That means that instead of going from 101 to 202, there would be a continuity of study going all the way through 402. In other words, there would be eight semesters of basic language study rather than four. This would not lengthen the time to achieve a degree, since once a student has completed 202, she is still eligible to take the more advanced classes.
Second, there would be an overall decrease in the number of required literature courses. The 301-402 classes would replace four of them.
Third, one of the literature classes would be devoted to thoroughly modern material. One possibility would be a class focusing on the ten bestselling books of the last decade in France (or any appropriate country). As it stands now, students can complete a language degree without the slightest familiarity with the material currently being read in their language of study. They should have at least a sense of this. Furthermore, modern writings are much easier to read and understand, and since it is the modern form of the language that is being taught, it makes sense to start the students' introduction to reading with something more representative of their studies. A logical first step to attaining a level of reading proficiency suitable for reading the great works of literature in a foreign language would be to start with a mastery of the ability to read modern texts.
Finally, professors should remember that the vast majority of undergraduate students go into language study for reasons other than to become familiar with great works of literature. This should go without saying, but my impression is that many professors do not realize this. Most students are interested in basic mastery of the language. They want to be able to speak, read, and write in it. Often they are trying to make themselves more marketable to prospective employers, in which case literary study is irrelevant.
Certainly there is a place for literature in undergraduate degree courses. I am not arguing against this, but I do believe that they need to be deemphasized. Students wishing to pursue foreign language literature at a deeper level can always do this at the Masters level. And for those who do, it would certainly behoove them to have had a more solid grounding in the fundamentals at the undergraduate level.