In this article, the authors reply to the arguments of Professors Nagel and Ladwig on the article "The logic of convergence and uniformity in teacher production". Professor Ladwig's review of their article is particularly valuable in two respects. First, it highlights the need for an institutional level of analysis to explain fully and inform education policy. And second, it allows them to comment about some important changes that have taken place in the flow of institutional thought over the past few decades. However, as the authors turn to Professor Ladwig's response, they must point out two weaknesses in his method of argument. Ladwig appears to initiate a straw man when he links the clause "economic hook, line and sinker" to the motive to attract adherents to their institutional argument. It is true that the authors seek to advance a fresh lens of analysis, which is the purpose of their writing, yet he does not work very hard to narrow the meaning of the term "economic", merely assigning to them a much narrower view than they actually hold. On the other hand, Professor Nagel's critique makes three points: (1) a program-accrediting agency compatibility argument; (2) an advocacy of "backward planning"; and (3) a comment on programmatic "renting". The authors deal with each in staccato fashion.