According to the authors, the comments offered by Robert Manning and Ray Kirshak in this issue of the "Journal of Student Financial Aid" (pp. 39-48) are designed to leave the reader with the impression that their paper "Usage of Credit Cards Received through College Student-Marketing Programs" ("Journal of Student Financial Aid," 2004) was nothing more than "advocacy research." While the authors firmly believe that improvement in financial literacy of America's youth is a valuable goal, they are not about to alter the facts to either promote or diminish the appearance of a "crisis" in college student use of credit. Sadly, they believe the same cannot be said of Manning and Kirshak. In their response, Manning and Kirshak appear to use a mantle of scholarly objectivity to advocate the viewpoints they espouse in their commercial endeavors. The commercial ties of both authors raise legitimate questions about the objectivity of their scholarly work on the topic. In this response, the authors address each of the "most salient methodological deficiencies" of their research design alleged by Manning and Kirshak. They invite interested readers to examine their paper and decide for themselves whether it represents academic scholarship or advocacy research. They contend that it is a straightforward, careful description of a new data set, and a comparison of the findings with other similar data sets.