You say that the very nature of the subject exclude those forms of teaching: why? The assignment very well COULD have been comparing themes and foreshadowing etc, I am going off decade old second hand account here for that example. The point wasn't the specifics, the point was to have these courses deliver the problem-solving aspects they currently lack. I see no reason why both approaches can't be taken concurrently; have parts done in abstract while also dropping in more specific "math-like" problem solving on your social sciences. Attention to detail is also more an issue of the bullshit level of relativity permitted here; while it probably won't ever reach lab-course levels, a good social science should still have it as a valuable tool (and many of my history classes did, some did not).
Meanwhile, I think we only slightly disagree on 1 and 2. The problem is of course 3. With these bullshit courses, I assert that they are only bullshit because they are being taught that way when I fail to see why these couldn't at least be held to the same standards as 2. Why is there no content? Because the subject matter doesn't allow it, or because the majors have evolved to not include it? I 100% believe it's the latter. First and foremost almost every one of these bullshit-laden majors has a glaring omission of statistics and statistical analysis that should be beaten into every part of their major. Next, women's studies often skip or gloss over history while anthropology students are (in my experience) shockingly ignorant of geography. These end up being 95% pseudo-philosophical bullshit with no wrong answers. Maybe they'll never make STEM, but they can at least be held to your category 2 level.
Painting is a whole other beast. Art school is its own level of scam bullshit. Even still, it IS possible to have solid course work there, but that's going to be the very few and far between courses that assign challenging projects rather than art history feels-based BS. The people who did art that I know were basically taking 3 or so total courses equal to one of these brutal lab-based sciences and then the rest (90%+) were gender studies level bullshit.
In both cases (gender studies etc and painting etc) a big issue is that people coming in know perfectly goddamn well they're diving into completely useless and inapplicable bullshit. They want it. They are deliberately avoiding a real major. If Gender Studies involved intense statistics and history learning up front, followed by rigorous projects with real grading (eg researching cause and effect properly, conducting surveys and correctly calculating error and bias), with actual work loads and potential for failure, I assume most of the dipshits would bail. Meanwhile, the purple hairs that actually cared would still take it, but in this case, they'd end up tumblr blogging with at least some semblance of background on the matters at hand. Sure, they'd probably still be authoritarian moral crusaders, but at least maybe they'd be zealots who know shit like how the wage gap actually works and acknowledge that obesity is unhealthy. Maybe.