Models of giftedness are not versions of the way the world is, but programmes for improving the world. They uphold visions of the good life, good society, and worthy character. They are vehicles for values. Sternberg acknowledges this in his conclusion: "The important thing is to work together toward a common good--toward devising the best ways to select students so as the maximize their positive future impact". The important questions to ask of WICS concern values, e.g. Is the job of schools and programmes to select future leaders and not, say, to foster the self-realization of all citizens? Can other conceptions of giftedness also help improve the world? Is it better to see "gifts" as things that can be "squandered" as judged externally or as self-defined aspects of a person that carry no investment obligations? The world would, no doubt, be better if "some" gifted schools and fellowship and scholarship programmes adopted WICS. The world would not be improved if they all accepted Sternberg's proposal to adopt WICS or any common model of giftedness. The proposal is unrealistic, morally questionable, and undesirable.