I'm elated about your results! Getting students (or anybody) to engage with philosophy is a major plus because it can play a huge role in anyone's life. That said, I bet in advance (when you first threw out the idea) that you'd get good results – it made so much sense.

Also, this is a "teachable moment" in truth units. Why would old school professors dislike ditching Plato? Because they DON'T want students to engage with philosophy? Hopefully not. But they would probably not be asking themselves that question. Student engagement is your test. They have a different test. Would it be a lot of work to rehabilitate their curriculum, syllabus, lectures, tests, rubrics, etc? Or another test -- if they are addicted to the old curriculum, then would the withdrawal be as painful as quitting smoking?

Those two possible tests are "reactionary" tests. Do they have a "positive" test? If so, what is it? Or if they are stuck in reactionary mode, then their tests are their tests.

But would you invite them to a professors’ roundtable to discuss how to make philosophy more engaging? If that is the goal, you’d have to say their test is, in essence, objectively wrong, the test for *that* judgment being it doesn't move the discussion toward its goal. Perhaps that is all intuitively obvious, but it framing this way is less condemnatory and inflammatory and doesn't throw the babies out with the bathwater.