I was a little taken aback by the premise that Victorian literature courses (or historical coverage courses in general) are increasingly a turn-off to the undergraduate population, but perhaps that's because of where I am? Historical coverage is built into the NYS teaching standards, and many of our students are preparing for teacher certification, ergo. It doesn't hurt that our major actually has historical and geographical distribution requirements (Shakespeare, pre- and post-1800 for British, pre- and post-1900 for the US, two World) that are more specific than Cornell's. Sometimes our courses have more students in them, sometimes less (there are times when I'll offer a course and it has ten takers, then the next time around it fills to capacity), but as a general rule our students do not run in horror at the prospect of reading literature published prior to 2000. Which is another way of saying that neither I nor Professor Levine can generalize from our respective positions--small regional comprehensive vs. big R1--even if we're only separated, geographically speaking, by about 100 miles.