I agree--of course--that intelligence matters and that DYS has a range of kids.
But to say that unless a kid is in college at 10 (or 11 or 13 or whatever), he isn't PG seems too narrow a definition of PG. There's too much more involved and there are too many other ways to get a kid's needs met.
Also, I think gratified3's point about parental values is key. Personally, I am actively working to slow down my DS8's progress in ways that still meet his need to learn precisely because I would prefer that he not be going to college very, very young. I think that's absolutely right for other kids, but it's not right for him specifically. Could he do early college? Probably. Maybe not at 10, but certainly by 12 or 13. I could be giving him a lot more work than I do. But I choose not to. I don't want him to go that fast if I can help it! Does that mean he's not PG? He may not be, but not for that reason.
(I also realize that eema did not say that very early college was the *only* way to define PGness. I just feel like that's where this conversation takes us.)
Ultimately, I think this sort of ranking is rather pointless. ALL of these kids have needs that are hard to meet. Does it matter if my DS8 is PG or EG or HG? Nope. He has needs that require special attention. That's the salient point.
