In this commentary, the author raises two critical aspects not adequately addressed in John Radford's (2008) wide ranging article on the teaching of psychology in higher education. The first aspect is the relevance of boundaries. The second aspect is the political context(s). These two issues, though artificially dissociated for current purposes, are inextricably linked. This commentary argues that the Graduate Basis of Registration (GBR) is not "the professional tail" that is "wagging the teaching subject dog", but a consistent stance in order to maintain standards within the teaching of psychology. Radford (2008) disputes that a distinction can be drawn between a discipline and a profession in that the former does not have boundaries whereas the latter does. A counter argument is that disciplines do have boundaries even if such boundaries are artificially erected by university governing bodies. Radford provides a timely opportunity to rehearse some of the relatively under discussed issues of what constitutes psychology as an academic discipline. These issues are often perceived as fundamentally unfathomable and perceived as debate topics rather than of substantive enquiry. The author stresses that more systematic study of the political processes should be part of that enquiry.