How come I think you are actually a part of said outcry mob? Oh, perhaps because you are riding on one of their favorite themes: "This single measure won't fix all of the problem, so let's just do nothing." And in face, now you've brought the second measure into the discussion, and discarded it right away (like a used plastic straw).

Seriously: No the straw ban will not fix any more than a tiny part of the plastic problem (but actually, it will help reducing local pollution levels). Further, I am highly sceptical that this plastic trap thing will ever work.

But arguing not look into any partial solution, because it does not fix the whole mess, is a really sad excuse for inaction.

They're protesting the (anticipated) change in social norms.

For a long time, in America, you could count on any "green" idea to be laughed at by a solid majority, either for being totally unrealistic, or for being obviously un-American. Thus no sane American would ever be expected to adjust their personal lifestyle towards anything green.

Now, there is increasing evidence that some green ideas are not so unrealistic at all. (I hesitate a bit to call Tesla "green", but clearly they are riding that wave, and have a green reputation). Those pickup drivers are rightfully afraid that, in a decade or two, their own true American neighbors, too, will expected them to switch to EV vehicles, and possibly even to pick up other green ideas, as well. And they don't want to.

Of course, class issues do play a role, too, as Teslas are also relatively costly, but I think at the heart of the issue that is a plain and simple fear, that their personal lifestyle is going to have to change, eventually. (The list of fears is long, here, I'll just throw in "vegetarianism" to illustrate the scope of the threat.)

Bicyclists are even worse "traitors", for obvious reasons, but since those are still so few, and so "obviously" laughable, they are not a real threat, yet.

Well, duh, indeed. If resources are limited, overall, putting more focus on one thing, means taking it away from other things. Pretty bloody obivous. If increasing total resources is not an option, it quite simply comes down to allocating the resources, to setting priorities. So is it a good decision to focus more on the "problem" students?

Well, that's the core of the debate, of course, but personally, I think, yes, it makes sense to shift the focus of education more towards the lower end. The most important reason is that domestic demand for mindless drone workers has decreased over the past two or three decades, dramatically. Those jobs - to a large degree - have either been outsourced or automated. "Producing" lots of people with real low qualifications means "producing" people who will never have a true economic perspective, ever. It means producing people who are - as harsh as that sounds - quite simply useless in domestic economy. Go figure, whether and how that is a problem.

On the other side of the equation, you can't ever have too many top-notch academics. But: I think we're really doing very well in that playing field, already. In some areas of expertise, we're even over-producing highly qualified individuals (who will later take a job in an entirely different field). Cutting back in that area is going to hurt, no doubt about that. But, I think it's going to hurt less than neglecting the severe problem we're facing on the "low" end of education.

So, yes, I think it absolutely makes sense to shift resource allocation towards the low end a bit. The upper end will suffer, but it will still be doing fine enough, overall.