Pros
The methods and materials really do help dyslexic readers make quick and impressive progress in decoding. It's rewarding to see students make such quick progress as decoders, and the students and other reading clinicians are usually a pleasure to work with. Clinicians learn a LOT about reading education in a short time.
Cons
Diagnosticians and managers play favorites by giving as many hours as possible to clinicians they like personally and to those who buy 100% into the company's arguably reductionist teaching philosophy. Even if you have a graduate degree in reading educate from a prestigious university, managers will cut your hours by half or more if they like others clinicians better than they like you. There's no way for the majority of the part-time, contingent reading clinicians the company exploits to make ends meet and almost no hope of advancement (very, very, very competitive promotion process). Clinicians get paid over $10 per hour less than most tutors, even though the intensive and specialized training and the tutoring itself are majorly challenging and high pressure. Some students rebel against the often overbearing demands of the intensive instruction to which they are subjected for many hours per day, but clinicians are expected to stay bubbly and upbeat and interesting every minute of the day to "motivate" students. Managers scapegoat clinicians for systemic problems with the program. The overly narrow approach to reading instruction can create "super remedial readers" (students who can automatically decode almost any real or unreal word thrown at them but who continue to have trouble making meaning from the texts they read). The severe restrictions placed on the language and methods that clinicians can use to teach are mainly to blame.
