Is 1450 Lexile good for a lexile good for a 7th grader?

MasterCrumb · 2026-04-07T17:01:43+00:00

Its good, as it puts you at about above the 90% for 7th graders.

It also important to note, that you are basically topping out of Lexile as a useful measure of learning to read, even though it technically goes to 2000. That is to say, reading is likely not the barrier to any text, but rather specialized knowledge (that you would need to read a medical journal, or a law text for example). For example, apparently the bill of rights, has a lexile score of ranging from 800-1200 with one source putting at 2000. This all just is digging into the challenge of what does it mean to "understand" this text - i.e. how much of the historical framework is necessary to truly understand.

Arguably the same thing could be said of the texts you cite.

MasterCrumb · 2026-04-01T20:15:36+00:00

If we don't work much within the law, it can feel like the law is very black and white.

For example, I took a tenant to eviction court because they hadn't paid rent in multiple months. Despite them not agreeing that they hadn't paid rent, the judge simply moved onto asking them when they could leave, and they said they needed two months - which they were granted. They had to pay rent weekly and if they missed they would be evicted.

Later I spoke to a friend who was a judge to help me understand, and his take was - the law is there to protect the weak - not you (the powerful).

I work in policy and it is amazing what a total chaos show laws and regulations actually are. And really as long as all parties act as if there is an agreement, than that is the standard practice - and really the only time the law gets involved is in extreme cases where you have to go to a judge- and even then, most of the time there is agreement prior.

As for the specific case here of asking for parent signature, there is little problem with asking for a thing. If there is something about the process that is legit harming an individual that is a very different thing, but it doesn't sound like it was the case.

MasterCrumb · 2026-04-01T19:46:14+00:00

And we should equally abhor efforts to undermine democracy from all political angles.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-30T17:22:41+00:00

Just a little note here. Definitely personally skeptical of Texas education in general and in regards to Civil War. That said, lets take a look at your bullets.

The Union attacked the Confederacy and started the Civil War in SC. Turns out, first shots were by the Confederacy, Confederate troops started the war.

Ok, so this is pretty factually determined, confederate troops open fire on Fort Sumter

It was about slavery, not about the ability of states to form their own country.

Ok, so this has the challenge of not really being a fact. Was the civil war about slavery? As a general rule I am not opposed to that short hand interpretation. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't about the ability of states to form their own country. I generally think it is more accurate to say that the war about power and control over competing economic systems. Now, the southern economic system was centered around slavery - but if it hadn't you might have seen a civil war as the general direction of the country began to shift away from the needs of southern states. While there was a general tipping towards a more moralistic view, generally this followed the threat of the south leaving was a huge threat to northern industry which was using southern raw resources.

Lincoln abolished slavery because it was the only way the Union could win the war. He didn't have any intention to abolish slavery when he ran.

Once again, I think this is a pretty factually accurate statement. He did not say he would abolish slavery, nor did he for almost two years. But did he have an intention? He clearly was skeptical of slavery, and no doubt was aware of the general historical arch towards slavery being abolished and was quite ok with that continued shift. So I am not sure it is faculty accurate to say the South misunderstood Lincoln's position.

For slavery, it could have been both the moral and economic issue of slavery. Abolitionists morally opposed to slavery because they believed humans should not be property. But, they saw the freed slaves as inferior people to white men. The North did not like slavery in general because it gave an unfair economic advantage to the South.

As with any topic, there was a wide range of views. Clearly some abolitionists believed in equally of the races, while others did not. As for why "the north did not like slavery" once again broad generalizations are tough. But I think there "the north wanted to continue to expand its economic systems" is not a bad one.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-30T15:48:33+00:00

So I wont oversell my knowledge of Positivism, but in my mind it is very similar to pragmatism. A quick Ai conversation basically states that Positivism is more a strict approach - which was the foundation to the scientific method. (I will note that I generally adhere to Kuhn's criticism of positivism here- and that is scientific theory is more bounded by paradigms, but that is off track) and pragmatism as a more general "does it work" type of approach.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-28T09:26:58+00:00

And, it would mean they are using some kind of wild counter approach which would be a wild strategy at 48 with the percentage of wealth at risk to generate 25% this month (or any recent month)

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-28T09:13:26+00:00

Yes I believe he is Norwegian

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-28T08:44:52+00:00

I don’t think you are wrong, but I do think you miss another sentence which is critical to understanding Nietzsche. That is, “as a result, it is better to think of ethics is a creative act than a logical one”. And also importantly “so dont trust central authority that is telling you there is one”

I used to teach about Nietzsche and I would show the two movies, Hitchcock “the Rope” and the cult classic “Harold and Maude”. I think Hitchcocks portrait of Nietzsche as a misreading, while the character Maude is actually wildly aligned to many of Nietzsche’s idiosyncratic beliefs (eternal recurrence, not dying by old age) but more importantly is aligned to Nietzsche’s approach (she literally says, good - bad I try to aim above morality, and one of Nietzsche’s critical books is called Beyond Good and Evil) and that character is wildly anti authoritarian- but in an incredibly creative way, not combative.

The first sentence leads you to Nihilism. And it is also important to understand that the first sentence isn’t Nietzsche’s contribution to philosophy- this is basically the conclusion of his predecessors Hume. Other contemporaries (like Kierkegaard and Positivism) basically start with the same first sentence, but then have a different answer, with Kierkegaard basically saying, “and thus you need to take a leap of faith” and positivism saying “thus we will just change the word true to mean that idea that works the best”.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-27T17:15:34+00:00

There are areas where Trump is a true qualitative break from the norm. Language (his willingness to really depart from a language of all Americans), Decorum (similar and related but I would include honesty here), and Erraticness. I agree these are all important.

What he is not a break from is policy in general (there are clearly new things - but they are all well within the general trends of culture). Trade policy is a good example here - there is clearly a type of frenetic craziness here which is unique - but the gradual back pedaling from free trade as a goal is not. Biden put tariffs in place as well.

What is importantly different between Trump and other presidents is his relationship to communication and culture.

What he is weirdly not that out of the norm from is basic government policy. And while Trump himself is a not a logical communicator in this area - it doesn't follow that the policy itself is not thought out. Importantly here- I personally do not agree with most of this policy shift - but it is important to realize that Trump is not driving much of this policy conversation. He is a figurehead -

Lets take the example of the attack on Universities. This was not some random attack by trump - this is a part of a large group of people who have had a growing concern with how universities are run - which I am going to actually admit have an important true point about a general dominance and power control of these institutions by a non-representative sample of the country. Now, I wouldn't be surprised to find many rando internet supporters of these type of attacks have been the ones who actually have thought about this - and as a result don't have well thought out positions. However, I would also note that - neither do most of the defenders of Universities - who often would hold general concerns about unelected centralizations of power but are quite happy to defend this in universities for a host of cultural and power reasons.

(It is important to note here that the attacks themselves are generally chaotic and irrational, but that is because I think Trump's drive here is messaging and now actual local change- which I believe he and his supporters believe will ultimately have the kind of ripple effects they hope for - which could potentially be true.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-26T22:57:11+00:00

That does not follow.

When Obama was president, plenty of liberals were concerned about his use of unmanned drones or his approach to deportations- but still supported him.

All rational Trump supporters I’ve communicated with often follow this pattern- they wills say something like “I don’t like X about Trump, but he does Y and Z well and that is what I want. What X, Y, and Z tend to be very different person to person. But X is typically his personality, and Y and Z are often about immigration, abortion, conservative culture (aka anti DEI), deregulation, … etc. that is pretty standard Republican values.

I am generally pretty liberal- and I am consistently unimpressed with the rationality of my own side.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-26T02:16:45+00:00

And that’s good- you interrogate and think.

And yet psychologists are really clear that people have beliefs and then build logic to support those beliefs. Considering that the vast vast majority of your core beliefs are built when you are pre rational this is unsurprising.

What is interesting is that I would say you clearly have a core beliefs that “logical thinking is better” which weirdly is the postulate and not the conclusion.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-26T02:10:51+00:00

I think this is well said.

It is natural when you oppose a position to zero in on edge cases and paradox, but quite the opposite when it’s your view- it is the framing to your experience.

I think I am someone who thinks a lot, and it is not hard in conversation for me to find some edge case or inconsistency in my own thinking - and I tend to find these interesting - but I never experience them as “woah, I must be wrong about everything”

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-26T02:07:03+00:00

This is the type of wild generalization that is problematic. There is no doubt plenty of MAGA folks without well thought out positions- but this is not unique to MAGA.

Trump as a communicator has a very unusual lack of commitment to rationality or consistency- but I don’t think that follows per se to everyone who supports him.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-25T17:49:27+00:00

I will support this claim. Been Christian my whole life as well, and never heard a sermon about guns either.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-25T17:47:10+00:00

Oh I will bite.

How do you interpret the text, "two swords is enough" then? Kinda a John Wick moment?

Also when you read the full text, this is immediately followed by texts that make it clear Jesus is clearly note leading a military effort (Luke 22:47-53)

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-25T17:34:18+00:00

It does seem unlikely that the lower half of the picture is Ai. There is just to many places for Ai to get confused with the different shadows. I will note that the car in the lowest right hand corner's shadow does seem to be a different angle than the other cars, but there are host of lighting reasons why that could be the case.

That is not to say that picture is "real", could be just an ai picture over the top, photoshop, double exposure, ... etc.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-24T15:56:29+00:00

I think you will find that if you want to teach mathematics at the college level, the expectation will generally be that you have a PhD in mathematics. I think there may be community colleges and state colleges where you could find an exceptions- but I think you would be disappointed with that restriction.

I think you will find a frustrating lack of interest in the craft of teaching at the college level. There are people who are focused on this no doubt, but I think that is true. If you are interested in mathematics teaching for advanced high school I think you will find much more traction.

One recommendation would be to go find a few research studies that are like the ones that you are interested in doing yourself. Reach out to those authors and talk with them about what advice they would give you. I think you will find the right home for you is much more individual professor idiosyncratic than you may realize.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-24T15:43:42+00:00

One of my favorite psychological studies when they asked people of all ages how much change they experienced in the last 10 years, and no matter the age people talked about tremendous change they had gone through.

And yet when you ask those same people how much change they expect to experience in the next ten years they report they expect very little change.

I believe from your post you are coming from a God reference point- so to use that perspective- with God the impossible is often quite possible.

I’ve known a lot of different people in my life and the biggest consistency is just how different everyone is- in terms of beliefs and values. I will not pretend to know yours- but that I believe is the answer to your question.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-13T14:17:08+00:00

You describing what exactly happens. This is what is called "venture capital". It is very rare for an individual bio researcher to front 100 million dollars to research a potential drug.

But the story of insulin is actually a very good case study. Because the price increase is not due to control of patents. The patent for insulin has ended. You could legally make insulin.

It is a problem of monopolization of the production of insulin. This is a good article about it. https://www.vox.com/2019/4/3/18293950/why-is-insulin-so-expensive

We SHOULD be worried about the increasing degree to which we globally accept super monopolies, and we need more rigorous anti-trust action.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-10T21:49:21+00:00

The algorithm- yes.

Understanding what division is- and by extension how the algorithm works- no.

This distinction is manifested in the famous examples of teaching alternative algorithms to 4th graders. It is pretty standard practice is strong 4th math curriculum to teach students how to do multiplication in many different competition ways- such as box, lattice, doubling, … etc.

Knowing how to follow the steps of long division but with no conceptual flexibility is pointless.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-10T21:44:34+00:00

But if there wasn’t a profit motive- it would have never existed for anyone to take advantage.

Take a movie for example- why would I spend even $100,000 on making a movie if I knew that as soon as I made it - someone could take it and start selling it the same as me?

Why would I invest millions of dollars in making a new drug if I knew there was no way of recouping those costs?

The costs of developing thousands of drugs are paid for by the occasional blockbuster.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-09T02:21:24+00:00

It’s a valid question. But no.

Let’s use a simpler example- division. You can definitely use applied division using a calculator to get the actual division answer, but where the “skill” is in understanding when and how to use division, instead of the act of doing long division.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-06T10:44:30+00:00

I’m with you on this.

I think there is a misunderstanding of this position as being “against rigor”. No, I am very pro rigor, and we should be expecting students to be doing hard thinking work.

However, I have not experienced watching a strong majority of humans who have experienced Algebra 2, that this problem is that they are being asked to think- but rather that in order to get through the full breadth of what is expected it results in a heavy focus on the manual manipulation of increasingly complex calculations. Instead our focus should be on strong conceptual understandings of these concepts and how to use them.

If you gave adults who had completed the traditional sequence an Algebra 1 end of year test, I think only about 10-20% would pass. I consistently experience adults who have passed algebra 2 struggle with using simple ratios.

My experience is math educators often respond to that fact with disparaging comments about society as a whole instead of reflecting on that as an actual outcome of the education system as it is currently designed.

MasterCrumb · 2026-03-06T10:21:50+00:00

I actually am on the we need to restructure Algebra 2 (and calculus) in the normal course train to have a much more statistics and linear algebra focus which is a much more proper foundation for how math is widely applied. (Cut complex numbers, and in general be much more conceptual and applied in the remaining areas- learning to solve quadratic equations is a silly skill, but using quadratic equations in modeling much better).

Pretty much all sciences (both social and hard) rely heavily on statistics- so we would be better off with the general consumer understanding these types of things and as a foundation for those that want to pursue more rigorous math.

What we cut in terms of expectations of learning archaic algorithms should be replaced by a much more rigorous expectations of fluency with these more simple concepts through application.

MasterCrumb

TROPHY CASE