They overstate the age groups, don't they?
DD1 is fairly bright, but I would say she isn't any kind of genius - she is 4.2, meant to be starting school in september, just starting to sound out simple words, do basic sums, talk about simple concepts in other areas, etc.
I bought her some new puzzle books the other day (she loves doing "work" - she begs me to print things off for her etc) and they were really basic - eg I bought the 3-5 year old maths book and it was basically counting to ten, and the 5-7 science book was only just starting to challenge her, and we did each sheet a few times, talked and played games etc so I could be sure she was actually understanding.
like I say, she really isn't academically amazing - she goes to nursery and no-one has ever remarked on anything besides her being quite well spoken (she's a first child - bound to be more used to talking to adults). Of course, i love her to bits, and think she is hilarious and amazing, but objectively she is maybe slightly ahead, nothing to be excited about.
So, could it be that the mn stereotype of people thinking thier child is utterly amazing is down to home workbook publishers putting an older age on the book cover?
(sorry for being controversial, but I am genuinely wondering - is it a marketing ploy?)
Or should I sign her up for uni now? 