And things like this, for IQ of 130:
Most of these children are a full two to five years beyond grade level by age six.
. I mean, really? To hear the teachers at our school tell it, it's very rare for a child to be more than one or possibly two years ahead in math at six, let alone for there to be a couple in each class who are doing fifth grade math.
This is pretty common in some elementary schools in some professional suburbs North of Dallas. Some have up to six kids per school > 99.9 on the MAP by 3rd grade and they are usually grouped together in the same class. A handful are scoring > 15 on the AMC8 in the 4th grade.
Yes, but what IQs do those kids have? There's simply no way that most children at the lower end of moderately gifted are 2-5 grade levels advanced by age 6. This is the sort of inconsistency that's rife in Dr. Ruf's system and helps to make the entire thing questionable. (ETA: I guess I could see it, if she were running into lots of children who don't test well, but that still doesn't show that her results are accurate in my opinion either.)
I think, like ultramarina, that it gets an important idea out there, that children with different enough IQ scores may be very different in important ways that people wouldn't otherwise understand from the numbers. However, the whole concept of levels itself is flawed, and the book ignores a good deal of accepted wisdom about gifties. So it's heavily flawed, though not worthless and still groundbreaking in its own way.
