Perhaps I'm missing something, but I fail to see the value in Jane Austen.  Her novels are often touted as  pieces of classic literature (as evidence by our "Penguin Classics" editions), but the plot seems like a Victorian soap opera and from what I hear all of Austen's plots are pretty much the same.   You could find droves of similar romance novels at any library, although Austen's writing is probably better.  Locution, not message.  Austen may be able to write eloquently, and this may be one of the reasons why she's highly regarded.  It just doesn't seem like there's any new ideas to be found in her writing, any underlying social commentary, or any sort of deeper message.  Just some woman pining after a prince charming who eventually comes round.   Maybe I'm not reading deep enough into her prose - but maybe others are reading too deeply into her prose.  This is one of the main problems I have with literary analysis in general.  Of course it's possible to read into Austen's writing and find a deeper meaning, but it's possible to read almost any meaning into any piece of prose if you try hard enough.  Of course, since Austen is dead, it's impossible to verify any deeper reading of her work (unless the message is obvious), but it's safe to assume that most deep interpretations of her prose will not have been her intent.

In relation to the other readings we did on empathy and consumption of fiction, I think Austen's work may even be a little harmful.  Assuming that reading fiction improves empathy (I know that it wasn't proven since there was only correlation), the 'empathy practice' you get from a novel would be dependent on the minds of the characters.  Of course, since these are only simulated minds, they do not reflect the way real people would act, but only how the author thinks such people would act.  If you are gaining your notions of how to interact with others and how they feel about things from Austen, you're probably going to be incorrect in some areas.

I find myself echoing the sentiments of the kind of person who thinks that violent media makes you more aggressive, or that watching porn makes you sexist.  As far as I know, these things haven't been proven...  So maybe I'm wrong about Austen.  Possibly, just seeing how Austen thinks the minds of other people work is beneficial - even if it's a bit flawed.  Obviously everyone's empathy is going to be a bit off, so there really is no objective standard of empathy to compare hers to, meaning there's value in reading any fiction - gaining insight into anyone's view of how other people work.