The authors of this rejoinder to "Isn't It Time We Did Something about the Lack of Teaching Preparation in Business Doctoral Programs?" (Marx, Garcia, Butterfield, Kappen, and Baldwin 2015), were invited to respond as a result of their analyses of dominant faculty recognition paradigms and questioning of their intellectual foundations. The authors of the current paper feel that the work done by Marx et al. is the best analysis of the current state of affairs they have seen. Although their data reveal broad noteworthy trends, there remains important work to be done to fully understand the problem. Hence, this rejoinder offers a logical extension of what Marx and colleagues have started. In order to capture the inadequacies of doctoral programs' educational training, and effectively alter them, the authors recognize three areas for thorough-going investigation, in raw economic language: (1) the "supply side"; (2) the "demand side"; and (3) the "throughput process". Marx et al. argue that doctoral programs should track where students are placed, and assess what they believe to be the most valuable part of their training. The authors of this paper would go deeper, believing that more attention should be paid to the supply side of doctoral programs through an evaluation of prospective students in the programs. In regard to the demand side, the authors suggest using bolder tactics in the process of hiring instructors. While the authors were impressed with the response of reported engagement in some form of teacher training, there exists a suspicion that few of those programs measure skill acquisition and performance capability. Based on this commentary and the authors' observations, the authors include recommendations to better comprehend the situation involving business school education in order to fashion meaningful reforms. [For "Isn't It Time We Did Something about the Lack of Teaching Preparation in Business Doctoral Programs?," see EJ1112595.]