Your response does a pretty good job demonstrating the internal challenges universities face. The interest in making a change was motivated by unmet needs, and it's not going away until those needs are met. The only way to deal with people who won't meaningfully engage in the problem solving process is to go around them.
A textbook should be provided for reference. Copying its contents on a blackboard isn't teaching. You still have to design your course. There's goals to meet, you have to evaluate where your students come from and your job is getting them there.
Besides pedagogy, in college you have to respect your students as studying adults and give them a proper bibliography, emphasizing references for independent study if they don't like your lecture notes, nor your approach, nor whatever.
I understand what a university is, I also understand and am qualified in secondary education and it would be incredibly depressing turning colleges into extended high schools because of business models. That would be exploiting students, I never agree with that.
I actually completely agree with everything you wrote. I'm also very familiar with the ongoing battle between education and training.
What I'm talking about is expanding options to meet additional education needs. Since universities are a shared resource, any solution must be carefully designed to preserve the ability to continue providing existing services. That's difficult to achieve, so I understand the obstructionist response.
All I'm saying is that if you position yourself as an obstructionist, don't be surprised when you're treated like one.
I'm very adaptable nowadays. It's just that I think I know which things should work, but I'm not fighting society, particularly not on this.
The thing with giving the public what they want and being too much of a pragmatist is that we've seen it before.
Consider Western universities in the 17th century, they were still there churning out degrees, but modern science, mathematics and technology developed elsewhere.
The old one-size-fits-some approach is as pragmatic as it gets. Society's education needs have grown beyond what the old model can adequately service. We need new solutions that don't cause regressions on the old solutions.
You're right to protect your existing solution against regressions, and there's value in revisiting old topics in the new discussions, but you're not going to constructively contribute much if you're unwilling to engage with why so many people feel the need for something different in the first place.
