Dr. Jacobson's analysis of "hard to serve" is well founded, especially from an academic and theoretical perspective, yet the author is left wanting. Is the solution to merely change the language, the terminology of the legislation, or the terminology used by policy makers as well as practitioners? Are these adults hard to serve or ill served? After re-reading Jacobson's essay the author decided to write this pragmatic response relying upon what he has seen, heard, and experienced. In other words, this response is more anecdotal than scholarly, primarily based on personal experience and conversations with a few directors he has known for years. The author argues that research on how policy shapes the practice of adult education teachers is needed, as well as how these teachers work within said policies. Most importantly there is a need to be careful when stating that students are ill-served. Within the confines of Federal and state rules, within the economic limitations every center has, the majority of adult learning students are well served. The author concludes with the central message that focusing on language and wording may be important to many, but for practitioners the goal is to successfully serve students within the limitations they have little control over. [For Jacobson's article, "There Are No Hard-to-Serve Learners, Only Ill-Served Ones," see EJ1290190.]