Cross-sectional study examines how educational pathways and program types affect labor market success in graduates, suggesting policy reforms for equity.
Socioeconomic status (SES) continues to predict inequalities in access to higher education (HE) and in graduates' labor market attainment, particularly in the transition from higher vocational education (HVE) to university pathways. Although policy reforms have expanded university participation for technical and vocational education and training (TVET) students, it remains unclear whether differences in program type and educational pathway determine the extent to which SES influences labor market attainment. This issue, concerning not only the expansion of education opportunities but also more equitable socioeconomic returns, is central to sustainable development goal 4 and 10 (SDGs4 and SDGs10). Employing a cross‐sectional research design, this study examines these relationships using archival data consisting of 1038 graduates in Sichuan Province, China. Information on program type, educational pathway, and labor market attainment were derived from institutional records and analyzed using regression analysis. Findings show that educational pathway significantly moderates the relationship between SES and graduates' labor market attainment in the overall sample, as well as within the soft‐field and digital‐field program subgroups. Consequently, the expanded university participation appears to mitigate the impact of SES on labor market attainment. Type of program also differentiates what students may achieve in the labor market. These findings suggest that while socioeconomic disparities continue to shape educational outcomes, differences in program type and educational pathway can reshape the impacts. Rather than suggesting that providing university access alone ensures equity, the study highlights the need for differentiated approaches to facilitate HVE students so that they obtain equitable outcomes. This study enriches the discourses of sustainable development, especially by adding value to SDGs4 and SDGs10.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xiaoli et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: