I guess I feel pretty qualified to say that I never mentioned Santa Claus in my kids' DYS applications and managed to be admitted anyway! I also never discussed their reactions to books at 3 months old, so they certainly admit people without reference to Ruf levels because I didn't give them any of that information.
Gratified, I think you are missing my point here. Neither you nor I are on the Davidson Young Scholar review board so it follows that neither of us really know whether or not they consider Ruf's levels as described by parents in the application. I understand that you didn't include that type of information and your child was admitted. I'm sure some people include a lot of that information and are admitted. We just don't know if they look at it for people that include it, does that make sense? I think I already made myself pretty clear that not clocking a 4 or 5 on Ruf's levels is no reason to discredit a kid's exceptional intelligence.
This isn't about discrediting every aspect of her work or attacking her personally, but about discussing the merits of the research as many other research topics are discussed -- like vision therapy, or the merits of the arguments in "Outliers", etc. I don't find the research useful, not just for me personally, but as research.
Wow! Was this intended to be as snarky as it seems, or is one of those things that come across wrong in print? Ouch!
