Recent knowledge distillation (KD) methods for semantic segmentation introduce increasingly complex hand-crafted objectives, yet are typically evaluated under fixed iteration schedules. These objectives substantially increase per-iteration cost, meaning equal iteration counts do not correspond to equal training budgets. It is therefore unclear whether reported gains reflect stronger distillation signals or simply greater compute. We show that iteration-based comparisons are misleading: when wall-clock compute is matched, canonical logit- and feature-based KD outperform recent segmentation-specific methods. Under extended training, feature-based distillation achieves state-of-the-art ResNet-18 performance on Cityscapes and ADE20K. A PSPNet ResNet-18 student closely approaches its ResNet-101 teacher despite using only one quarter of the parameters, reaching 99% of the teacher's mIoU on Cityscapes (79.0 vs 79.8) and 92% on ADE20K. Our results challenge the prevailing assumption that KD for segmentation requires task-specific mechanisms and suggest that scaling, rather than complex hand-crafted objectives, should guide future method design.