Should Philosophy Programs Nix Plato?

Over at Dissense.com, a site I plan on contributing to from time to time, Felix York says good riddance to Plato and other classic texts:

Modern academia exhibits a strange incongruity. The physics professor who assigns Aristotle to her students is a laughingstock, but the metaphysics professor who assigns Aristotle is typical. The ancient philosopher is equally comprehensible in either context. Historically, he exerted at least as much—if not more—influence in the empirical sciences as in philosophy. And in both cases, modern scholars roundly reject his views. Does this make any sense?

I dissent:

The heart of the issue is whether or not these writings represent the best exposition of their position, and whether or not these ideas are worth studying.

For instance, “[r]eading Aristotle and Aquinas at the expense of Wittgenstein and Quine conveys the notion that, despite centuries of development, you really can’t improve on the originals.”  Are Wittgenstein and Quine a development of Aristotle and Aquinas?  This is an assumption sorely in need of proof.  In many respects these thinkers are in conflict with each other.  Does coming centuries after someone you reference and in some respects disagree with necessitate salutary development?  One can believe that we can and do progress in knowledge in philosophy and science and also reject the extreme version of this view: that whatever comes after is always somehow better.