Thanks Lucouno. I didn't know that about LOG, as an amateur I have found it to be a useful classification, this kid is MG, that kid is HG. But what you say makes sense it that there is clearly much inconsistency in how they are defined.
It's just my opinion, of course. But the problems I've seen include:
* LOGs involve arbitrary and artificial stratification of scores on a continuum
* LOGs are useless in advocacy, since educators will generally get a blank look if you try to discuss a LOG, whereas they will comprehend (to varying degrees) and be able to discuss actual scores
* There's score-based inconsistency between different classification methods; Ruf's Levels are worse by virtue of internal inconsistency and dependence on very fuzzy milestones
* Giftedness depends on mindset and creativity too, not just scores on an academic test
* Defining someone by a LOG may be limiting, just as defining a person by a score may be limiting. I like to remember that Richard Feynman scored a 125 on an IQ test (in the old days, so this was probably squarely in non-gifted territory)
* They seem to be used for bragging rights at least as much as useful shorthand
I guess it can be useful to have a shorthand system for a very rough description of a child's giftedness, but I don't think LOGs fit the bill for accuracy at all. There seems to be a lot of eagerness especially on the part of parents new to thinking about giftedness to slap on labels, obsess over milestones, etc., but I think individual gifted kids are far more unique than a LOG label, even if accurate, could possibly show.
For what it's worth, plenty of people slap on the PG label for children scoring like your daughter. This seems to be based on the DYS program description and the fact that 145+ is the cutoff score for most of the tests. So if you're ever in a discussion with a person describing her daughter as HG, you can go her one or two better.
