This paper, a rejoinder to "Isn't It Time We Did Something about the Lack of Teaching Preparation in Business Doctoral Programs?" by Marx et al., suggests glancing at practices outside the United States to get some perspective on the nature of the problem of why so little emphasis is placed on teaching preparation in business doctoral programs prior to rushing off to run teaching development programs for doctoral students. Most training for university teachers round the world, and certainly the most extensive, sophisticated and demonstrably effective training, occurs after academics take up their first academic position. The United States is almost unique in not taking "in-service" training of university teachers seriously and relying largely on "preservice" training of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). It is difficult to disentangle issues concerning the adequacy of preparation of future academics from the general context of values and rewards, from the nature of dominant performance indicators in teaching and research, and from the national context of the higher education market. This paper suggests that much of the Marx et al. article could have been written about any aspect of trying to improve teaching within systems where the market is driven by reputation, and where reputation is not about teaching--and it has been said many times before. To bring about much change in U.S. universities it may be necessary to change what reputation indicates, though that is a tall order. The phenomena described with such outrage are in large part a feature of North American higher education and are by no means universal or inevitable. [For "Isn't It Time We Did Something about the Lack of Teaching Preparation in Business Doctoral Programs?," see EJ1112595.]