The term "real-world ID" is commonly heard at professional conferences, but its meaning is assumed rather than defined. Unless we examine the meanings and implications of rhetoric of the field, we risk error in presenting ourselves, and we risk derailing the progress of our profession. This article examines the term "real world" as applied to instructional design, from published articles to anecdotes, and considers its meanings, assumptions, inferences and implications. Both the full term and its truncated variations are used to signal two dichotomies: 1) more and less authentic professional design practice, and 2) a contrast between design instruction and design practice. Both uses range across process, products and contexts. The scholarly literature and curricular evidence demonstrate that instruction in ID is more often authentic than artificial. Evidence from ID practice demonstrates its tremendous diversity and range, and underscores that there is no generic version of design justifying this popular stereotype. As IDT scholars and professionals, we have a responsibility to communicate with precision and to challenge overgeneralization that contributes to misconception and division in the field.