I don’t find it hard to entertain a hypothesis that a very brief exercise could be as effective (or as ineffective) as a 90-minute test in predicting young children’s fitness for a giftedness program. I definitely think the hypothesis and its ramifications are worth exploring. But it seems rather hasty to me to put it into practice without being able to explain why it works. On the other hand, that might just be my bias toward rationality speaking. If it does work, maybe it’s not important to know why. Like the author, I have mixed feelings about such testing, though not for the same reasons. I see a great value in placing exceptionally able children in a setting where they can move ahead at their own rapid pace and not be held back by those who can’t keep up. But I think labeling as less able can do a great deal of harm and actually discourage children from trying to do as much as they can (and teachers from encouraging them to). I’ve never seen a good solution to this dilemma.