This article presents the authors' critique on "Differentiating Low Performance of the Gifted Learner: Achieving, Underachieving, and Selective Consuming Students" (Figg, Low, McCormick, & Rogers 2012). The authors of "Differentiating Low Performance of the Gifted Learner: Achieving, Underachieving, and Selective Consuming Students" endeavored to empirically validate qualitative findings that a difference exists between gifted students with high academic self-perceptions who deliberately underachieve and gifted students with low academic self-perceptions who underachieve. They further sought to distinguish these two groups of underachievers in terms of thinking styles. Quantitative findings of this study, however, indicated no statistically significant differences between gifted selective consumers and conventional gifted underachievers with regard to academic self-perception or thinking styles, "though the study has produced support for the current trend in the literature that these students do, indeed, differ qualitatively from the underachieving student." What remains unclear in the authors' minds, however, is whether not learners, or "selective consumers," as identified by the authors of "Differentiating Low Performance" (Figg et al., 2012) are, indeed, a special breed of underachieving students or just students who underachieve for their own reasons, just like all other underachievers. In "Differentiating Low Performance" (Figg et al.), the authors do not paint a complete picture of what a gifted underachiever looks like, except to contend that this group of students has a low academic self-perception.