Talk:Dropping out

New Section

I plan on creating a new section for this page entitled “High School Drop Out” with a subsection for the United States. It will be a brief blurb describing the bare bones of the issue. There will be a link to a new article I will be writing that explores high school dropout in the United States in more detail. Hopefully the new section will encourage others to write on the topic from different countries’ perspectives. Alison.moscoso

40%

"Dropping out is what 40% of people in school do these days. They may do this because they don't like school, they have drug problems or they have a career opportunity." Removed until a source is given. I dunno about you guys, but my school doesn't have 1,080 students dropping out. Ahanix1989

I think the statistic is more accurate for high schools in the inner city, like in New York, and it is probably not that high. I read about a high dropout rate in New York schools compared to other schools. (Mad Gouki 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC))

The percentages of high school drop-outs can be determined accurately, as the number of twelve year olds in a population is known, as is the number of high school graduates. A hard to determine variable is the number that may enter and quit 'home-schooling,' vocational training, apprenticeships, and/or employment. A rarely mentioned factor that is present in very high percentages of the drop-out population is the single-parent family during the high school years. Very few studies have been done, but countless observations point to single parenting, when it includes less than both of a student's biological parents making a home for the student, year after year, as far more likely to lead to various social difficulties. Poverty, which presents many social obstacles, is far more likely when only one parent paycheck is possible. Early pregnancy is far more likely when a teen girl's biological father is not present in the home. A host of additional difficulties are far less likely when both biological parents are present. When attempting to discuss these matters, some assume that mentioning these obvious facts condemns single parents as inept or incompetent. This is hardly the case as some single parent outcomes are very positive. However, it is difficult to argue that fewer resources would be an ideal for children--and his/her biological parents are a most important resource for rearing children--and maintaining a higher standard for educational attainment.Homebuilding (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Page Appropriate for such a Major Issue

I'm planning to basically start from scratch on this page-adding sections on how dropout rates differ across socioeconomic levels, how it limits future job opportunities, increase risk of increased poverty, etc. Anyone willing to help, please let me know on my talk page. It would be especially appreciated if users from countries other than the U.S. would be willing to contribute to this article; otherwise it runs the risk of being highly USA-centric.LeeRamsey (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This is new text: I think that expanding the scope of this article by including the aforementioned information is a wonderful idea. At the moment, the article does not present very much relevant information. Describing in more detail dropping out from high school as well as the typical implications of that will increase the article's relevance. Another thing to discuss could be the motivation behind dropping out of high school.

Alison.moscoso (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Move article?

This sounds crazy, but this could be useful as a link or "see also" under "Education in the United States" IFF we drop Einstein and a couple of others. Most are American dropouts anyway. We would then have a list of five or so in the "high level" article and a pointer to "List of drop outs in the United States." Student7 (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's already linked there, but nor really that properly since it does contain non-US. Student7 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's a terrible idea. Removing individuals from the list specifically because they are not American on a website that is edited and read by all english speaking people of the world is not adviseable.

I guess I explained this badly. My intent was to form a new article called "Drop Outs in the United States" or somesuch. It would be a fork from this main article. But most of the article would be moved since most are Americans. This high level article only would contain Einstein and a few other non-Americans. They would not be removed, just terribly, terribly lonely!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I just don't see the benefit of parsing the information the way you describe, however others could always weigh in as well. I don't think that this page is very highly watched, so you may need to go to WP:3O or open a request for comment to see what others think.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what I will do. But I need more from you than {WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. It's sort of like finding a list of physicists and deciding to fork a list of German physicists. You don't really need anyone's permission to fork an article if there is a good reason. Student7 (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you're looking to remove the majority of the content of this article in order to create a new article that only addresses a US-centric view, then yes you should gain concensus before doing so. The article as it stands is inclusive and provides a good sourced overview of notable drop outs. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Which would tend to emphasize the npov truth (unstated, of course) that only in America can a person drop out and still become notable. Can't do that in a bureaucratic, static society like Europe or Japan. All the tickets must be punched. Student7 (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What?! You seem to have an agenda in wanting to split this article. You correctly asked for input regarding potentially splitting the article and you received one. Perhaps it wasn't what you were expecting, but as this is a MAJOR change to the article and you'll need to consensus to do it. As only the two of us have weighed in, a third opinion is the next step if you would like to pursue the option. A request for comment is also a possibility. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Doctorate

I removed someone who didn't take his doctorate from "Dropping Out." An editor, either not understanding, or whatever, reverted it. No one in the world would recognize the term "dropping out" as pertaining to a person beyond undergraduate degree. Will someone else delete it. It clearly doesn't belong in the article. Student7 (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I explained the revert clearly in my edit summary. The doctoral section is not for individuals who "did not take his doctorate", it is for individuals who enter a doctoral program and then drop out prior to completing their degree. If you disagree, which you obviously do (not only with this particular issue, but the other issue with you wanting to split the article as discussed above) I can't understand why you don't just follow the regular guidelines for dispute resolution; that is request a third opinion or start a request for comment? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the definition to include the dropping out from a degree higher than most people have studied for, is errant nonsense. It is WP:OR. There is no scholarly basis for asserting this. Student7 (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, you are presenting your opinion. And again, you are welcome to follow the disputer resolution process in order to garner additional input. What should not be done is the removal of long-standing and well-sourced content without consensus to do so. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The information has been restored. You argument boils down to "I don't like it" which is not a valid argument for the removal of reliably sourced content from an article. I have pointed you to WP:3O and the relevant links to follow for dispute resolution. You cannot simply blank reliably sourced, long-standing sections of an article simply because you personally do not agree with the content without first gaining WP:CONSENSUS to do so.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Concluding that anything except leaving high school is "dropping out" is WP:OR. Inserting any other claim here serves no useful purpose. It is disruptive IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That is solely your personal opinion. The definition of drop-out, chosen from a completely random list of online definitions, is "a person who has abandoned a course of study", "a student who withdraws before completing a course of instruction", "to not do something that you were going to do, or to stop doing something before you have completely finished", "If a student drops out, they stop going to classes before they have finished their course." No dictionary definition says this applies to high school students only. The content has been in the article for two years, and is fully and reliably sourced - your continued blanking of it based on your personal and unsubstantiated opinion without first gaining consensus, and your refusal to pursue dispute resolution in order to gain consensus is disruptive. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have filed a third opinion request per dispute resolution policy and guidelines. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Dropping out and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: I take it that this diff defines the dispute. Let me point out that this dispute is not over narrative text which asserts that failure to complete a doctorate is dropping out, but over the inclusion or exclusion of Farquharson as an example of a doctoral drop-out. I'm going to address that dispute, not the disagreement over the general principle. And it's one that is simply resolved. Farquharson did not drop out of his doctoral program however that term might be defined. He received his undergraduate degree in 1953 and his doctorate in 1958, as is clearly described in the second reference, the Dummett paper, given in that diff (full text can be examined through EBSCO Academic Search Complete, which is available through most public libraries) and, indeed, in the Robin Farquharson WP article as well. Farquharson was a dropout, but from society, not academia, due to mental illness. If either of you wants to assert that failure to complete a doctorate is or is not considered to be dropping out, and can provide reliable sources for that assertion, more power to you. (But I would take a look at WP:NOTDICTIONARY before you do.) Until then, there's nothing to argue about, except perhaps about the color of templates. Kudos to both of you, however, for taking this to dispute resolution before you reached that point.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you TransporterMan for your well-thought-out and thorough analysis. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Murder victims

While they wouldn't be notable, 94% of all young murder victims are male high school dropouts. Student7 (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

...and 87% of all statistics are made up. I would say that the gist of what you are saying is worthwhile, if done delicately. I could easily see a section on 'Negative effects of dropping out' for the purpose of keeping it NPOV, which could include some murders/victims who it can be cited that dropping out was a factor in their crime/death. Have to be careful with it to prevent synth and OR issues, but I'm confident that there has been significant coverage on the bad side of (specifically) dropping out of high school. This is a bit more complicated than you are proposing, but imho, it would be a better way to handle it, and could really add some needed context to the article. Obviously, if there are citations that demonstrate the advantages of dropping out, they would justify a counter section. This would move this article further away from being an expanded dicdef with lists, and more of a real article on the concept. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well this one http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2010/02/tipping-point/ says "San Francisco" high school dropouts were murder victims. It was generalized in the copy I first saw. Still....

This one (in Wikipedia) says 60% of dropouts (of all races?) have prison records: Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Prison_data. Student7 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect & Uncourced People

This article is overall well written. I'm now using it as a main source as I'm creating this page in another language, but there's a big issue. The majority of the people who don't have a linked source next to their names, are apparently not even dropouts. I've done a little research, but wasn't able to find information that confirmed this claim for many of them. [Update: The issue was fixed on December 2013]. Shalom11111 (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Sounds like me Lin Rongxiang 14:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronggy (talk • contribs)

UK

The UK section is mostly about university.
Probably because people aren't allow to drop out of school. It is a legal requirement in the UK that children are sent to school. [there's a loophole for home schoolers]
This should be moved to "Dropouts (education)"
QuentinUK (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High school dropouts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120911051552/http://www.nodropouts.org/blog/whiz-kids-and-wizards-why-it-s-time-change-way-we-think-about-who-can-go-high-school to http://www.nodropouts.org/blog/whiz-kids-and-wizards-why-it-s-time-change-way-we-think-about-who-can-go-high-school

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

---

• Dropping out → Dropout
• Dropout → Dropout (disambiguation)

– This article is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "dropout". It should also be moved per WP:NOUN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support - It doesn't take a high school graduate to see that this should've been moved a long time ago (per the nom). Primergrey (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - pedantic and debatable application of NOUN which removes the WP:NATURAL disambiguation. WP:GERUNDs are valid under WP:NOUN (for example, swimming, driving, etc.) exactly because it is awkward and limiting to title these topics based on the term for a person performing the act rather than the act itself. The current title is the most WP:COMMONNAME for the topic. -- Netoholic @ 12:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  I'd be surprised if the current title is the more WP:COMMONNAME, as you suggest. Primergrey (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  Even putting aside the policy of WP:NOUN, the current title is, as I said, just as ambiguous as Dropout. It is not a valid use of WP:NATURAL. It would have to be moved to Dropping out (education) instead, but that makes little sense as it is not WP:CONSISTENT with things like Dropout (communications) and Dropout (astronomy)._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Primergrey: @Netoholic: Comment Since you mentioned WP:NATURAL how about moving this article to Dropout and moving Dropout to Dropout (disambiguation) instead? It seems to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  Absolutely. Primergrey (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose this as well. Doesn't address my concern that the most appropriate title is the name of the act itself rather than the term for the person doing the act. -- Netoholic @ 07:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  The article itself seems mostly about what happens after people drop out, not about the act of dropping out._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose making the education topic primary for the term "dropout". Dropout (neural networks) is an important encyclopedic topic which is neck and neck in terms of pageviews. (And there are some others with non-trivial pageviews as well, such as Dropout (streaming platform).) Colin M (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose multiple meanings. Net loss of clarity. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not clear that there's a primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose this unwarranted primarygrab. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 4 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Other than not having any support, it hasn't even been a month since the last RM was closed. This RM was initiated way too soon. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Dropping out → Dropout (education) – Since this article is not primary, it should be moved to be properly disambiguated. My reasoning is as follows: "Dropping out" can also be used to describe other terms, such as "the connection dropping out" or "radiation dropping out". Therefore, it is overly vague and should be redirected to Dropout. Per WP:NOUN and WP:CONSISTENT, it should also be called "dropout". _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - pedantic and debatable application of NOUN which removes the WP:NATURAL disambiguation. WP:GERUNDs are valid under WP:NOUN (for example swimming, driving, getting lost, dropping in, etc.) exactly because it is awkward and limiting to title these topics based on the term for a person performing the act rather than the act itself. The current title is the most WP:COMMONNAME for the topic. -- Netoholic @ 01:59, 5 January 2020‎
• Oppose per Netoholic. Unclear what advantage the new title has, better to stick to natural disambiguation. "My connection is dropping out" is a valid English sentence, sure, but is in no way an encyclopedic topic. SnowFire (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.