Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of family socioeconomic background on university rankings, efforts in VETs, and job satisfaction of university graduates. The family socioeconomic background and mediation potential, which are independent variables, are identified through university rankings to identify mechanisms that affect job satisfaction that may appear to college graduates, and political and practical implications for strengthening job satisfaction are presented. An analysis was conducted using panel data from the Graduate Occupational Mobility Survey, obtained from the Korea Employment Information Service. The data analysis was performed using SPSS21.0 and AMOS22.0. Consequently, the following conclusions were drawn. First, the family socioeconomic background significantly impacts job satisfaction. Second, the influence of family socioeconomic background on job satisfaction is further amplified with university rankings as a parameter. Third, the level of influence of family socioeconomic background on job satisfaction did not change according to the characteristics of VET participation as a mediator. The threat of human labor replaced by technology, the possibility of creating new industries and new jobs, and the diversification of employment types such as platform labor are accelerating with the advent of the 4th Industrial Revolution. Our study of the subjective perception of individual occupations could provide a driving force for maintaining jobs in the long run and leading to success in this changing labor market.

Plain language summary

Introduction: This study analyzed the effect of family socioeconomic background on the competition for university entrance, human resource development characteristics, and job satisfaction of university graduates. Aim: To analyze the effect of family socioeconomic background on university rankings, efforts in VETs, and job satisfaction of university graduates. The family socioeconomic background and mediation potential, which are independent variables, are identified through university rankings to identify mechanisms that affect job satisfaction that may appear to college graduates, and political and practical implications for strengthening job satisfaction are presented. Method: This study is intended to investigate the factors influencing job satisfaction with university graduates as the target. By identifying family socioeconomic background, an independent variable, and the possibility of its mediacy through their university rankings, it figures out the mechanism that affects job satisfaction that can appear in the university graduates and provides political and practical implications to strengthen their job satisfaction Results: First, the family socioeconomic background significantly impacts job satisfaction. Second, the influence of family socioeconomic background on job satisfaction is further amplified with university rankings as a parameter. Third, the level of influence of family socioeconomic background on job satisfaction did not change according to the characteristics of VET participation as a mediator. The threat of human labor replaced by technology, the possibility of creating new industries and new jobs, and the diversification of employment types such as platform labor are accelerating with the advent of the 4th Industrial Revolution. Our study of the subjective perception of individual occupations could provide a driving force for maintaining jobs in the long run and leading to success in this changing labor market.

Keywords

family socioeconomic background human resource development human resources management management social sciences job satisfaction individual’s VET efforts university ranking

Introduction

In modern society, there is a belief in meritocracy that a society that can achieve social status depending on one’s own efforts and abilities rather than individual attributes is more just and fair (Lois & Riedl, 2022). In addition, education and training system is operating as a means of obtaining a legal status based on the human capital theory which says that participation and investment in education and training improve economic productivity (Jin & Waldman, 2020). However, doubts have been raised about meritocracy in Korea, and this trend is particularly strong in the younger generation. As a metaphor to say that “individual differences based on the socioeconomic background formed by parents determine one’s future,” silver spoon and plastic spoon have been used as the terms to describe the characteristics of Korean society (Lee & Chung, 2020). In addition, it was found that the perception of economic inequality was higher among the younger generation compared to the older one (Park, 2022). Nevertheless, the university enrollment rate for high school graduates in Korea is 71.5% (Korean Educational Statistics Service, 2021), indicating that the central axis of education has already shifted from secondary education to higher education. The ranking of universities according to academic performance is clear, and the university from which one graduates is recognized as an indicator of their abilities (K. Kim, 2021). Korean adolescents are busy with their studies to enter top-ranked universities (K. Kim et al., 2009). Also, they are participating in additional vocational education and training (Hereafter referred to as VET) in addition to their university education for the development of vocational skills to obtain decent jobs after entering university (Jang & Lee, 2021). It is recognizable that expectations for differences in individual achievement still act as a motivator for young people, and their behaviors mentioned above show that they are active in developing their abilities through education. Therefore, it is necessary to empirically examine whether the young generation’s distrust of meritocracy is a misunderstanding, or specifically, whether family socioeconomic background affects individual participation in education and training and differences in career achievement.

Related previous studies include the relation between individual socioeconomic differences and income (Björklund et al., 2009; Kalil & Ryan, 2020), the effect of participation in education and training on income (Agarwal et al., 2019; Olfindo, 2018), and the relation between elite university and income (Carnevale & Rose, 2004). With a different point of view, this study aims to focus on job satisfaction that corresponds to the subjective perception and emotion of an individual’s career. The threat of human labors replaced by technology, the possibility of creating new industries and new jobs, and the diversification of employment forms such as platform labor are accelerating along with the advent of the 4th industrial revolution. This is because the subjective perception of an individual’s job becomes the driving force for maintaining the job in the long term and leading to success in it in this changing labor market.

Accordingly, this study analyzed the effect of family socioeconomic background on the competition for university entrance, human resource development characteristics, and job satisfaction of university graduates.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Socioeconomic Background and Job Satisfaction

Previous studies exploring socioeconomic background and higher education have mostly focused on the relative vulnerability of students from low-income families. For example, low opportunities of higher education completion, low academic achievement, and negative university life characteristics (Muskens et al., 2019; Roksa & Kinsley, 2019) have been discussed. This agrees with the assumption that obtaining a college degree has a positive impact on improving an individual’s life (Zhou, 2019). However, it is still debatable whether education or family background will have a greater effect on an individual’s life (Marshall & Swift, 1993; Saunders, 1997). In addition, as the proportion of work in life increases, job satisfaction has a significant impact on the quality of life of individuals, but the relationship between family background and job satisfaction is not well understood. Representatively, Biazotto et al. (2022) reported there was no statistically significant relationship between socioeconomic background and job satisfaction, but this result is limited to the specific occupation of doctors. That is, the results of this study have limitations in generalization.

On the other hand, lots of previous studies have empirically made investigations on the subject: individual’s educational background and economic income affect job satisfaction (Hoque & Afrad, 2014; Jiang et al., 2017; Mitchell & Esnard, 2014; Pohlig et al., 2020). They, however, have focused on discussing the relation between self-achieved socioeconomic status and job satisfaction within the same generation. This study focused on the fact that young people who start and shape their careers are not free from the socioeconomic background formed by their parents. The following hypotheses were proposed from this point of view.

Hypothesis 1. Does family socioeconomic background affect job satisfaction?

Family Socioeconomic Background, Human Resource Development Characteristics, and Job Satisfaction

This study regards the characteristics of higher education and participation in VET as human resource development characteristics based on the human capital theory. First, it is necessary to understand the context of higher education in Korea, which is the focus of this study. Korea has a clear ranking of universities, and there is a strong tendency to evaluate abilities according to what university one graduated from (Peng et al, 2019). Also, this ranking has hardly changed in the past 30 years, and what is interesting is that the ranking is closely related to the distance from the capital of Korea, namely, Seoul. Competition for university admission is intense due to the highest-ranked universities in Seoul and the reality that the further away from Seoul, the lower the ranking of university (Lee & Koh, 2019). Considering these characteristics, in this study, the ranking of universities in Korea was divided into three groups: highest-ranked university group (universities in Seoul), middle-ranked university group (universities close to Seoul), and lower-ranked university group (universities far from Seoul). Korea’s higher education enrollment rate is 71.5% in 2021 (Korean Educational Statistics Service, 2021). This means that the level of admission to a high-ranked university act as an important human resource development characteristic rather than the acquisition of university education itself.

According to previous studies, socioeconomic background has been shown to have an effect on university admissions and post-graduation income (Selvitopu & Kaya, 2023; Tomaszewski et al., 2020), It is necessary to demonstrate the family socioeconomic background and the influence of education experienced by Korean youth based on the previous studies.

Hypothesis 2. Does family socioeconomic background affect the university ranking?

Meanwhile, according to the results of previous studies, whether the university ranking affects job satisfaction or not is still controversial (significantly affect: Sharp & Weidman, 1987; no affect: Liu et al., 2010). Therefore, the relation between family socioeconomic background, university ranking, and job satisfaction is to be investigated in this study.

Hypothesis 3. Does family socioeconomic background affect job satisfaction with university ranking as a mediating variable?

As the youth unemployment crisis continues, Korean youth are participating in VET for the purpose of finding employment in addition to their studies at universities. It has been proven that socioeconomic background affects the time and cost invested in VET (Lee & Chung, 2020). Although the effect of participation in VET on job satisfaction after employment has been identified in Germany (Pagán-Rodríguez, 2014), studies that reflect the situation in Korea are relatively insufficient. The following hypotheses were established reflecting this.

Hypothesis 4. Does family socioeconomic background affect individual’s efforts in VET?

Hypothesis 5. Does family socioeconomic background affect job satisfaction with individual’s efforts in VET as a mediating factor?

Method

Research Model

This study is intended to investigate the factors influencing job satisfaction with university graduates as the target (Figure 1). By identifying family socioeconomic background, an independent variable, and the possibility of its mediacy through their university rankings, it figures out the mechanism that affects job satisfaction that can appear in the university graduates and provides political and practical implications to strengthen their job satisfaction. The research model is as follows. Since university ranking and individual’s efforts in VET, mediating variables, are closely associated with each other, it was hard to set the direction. To connect the disturbance errors, not the influencing relation but covariation relation was assumed.

Figure 1.

Research model.

Research Data and Object

To verify the influence of university ranking and family socioeconomic background on the university graduates’ obtaining occupational positions, 2018 “GOMS: Graduates Occupational Mobility Survey” conducted by Korea Employment Information Service was used. “Graduates Occupational Mobility Survey” is based on surveys conducted by Ministry of Labor and Korea Employment Information Service to continuously investigate and analyze the employment conditions of highly educated young people and their subsequent moves in the labor market and turn the relevant information into database. In addition, it is to understand the economic conditions at the time when university students graduate, their entry into the labor market, and the effect on their performances in the labor market. Predicting a considerable change in the university education service market due to the rapid decrease in young university graduates, university restructuring and realization of higher-education policies such as implementation of education information disclosure system, it collected empirical data on the university graduates’ entry into the labor market and their settlement to meet political demands that may occur afterwards. The population of “Graduates Occupational Mobility Survey” is the students who graduated from two to three or four-year universities, and it is a cross-sectional survey in which 18,000 graduates of the previous year are sampled, conducted once a year. It was designed as an annual longitudinal panel survey at the beginning in 2006, but since 2012, only a cross-sectional survey has been conducted. This survey has questions regarding the graduates’ university and identifies their occupation, pay, etc. Besides, it consists of questions that may influence their entry into the labor market and settlement including university life, curriculum, job-seeking, job experience, vocational training, certificate or license, personal information, and family background. The data used in this study is for the university graduates with a major in liberal arts, social science, engineering, and natural science, excluding the graduates from medical and educational fields which show a high correlation between the field of major and job characteristics, among 18,000 university graduates who participated in 2018 “Graduates Occupational Mobility Survey.” Thirty-six students with no occupational income among them were excluded from the subject of analysis. Accordingly, data from a total of 5,735 people was finally used for the analysis. Information regarding their gender ratio, type of university they attended, and their university location is as presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographical Analysis (Unit: Person, %).

Classification		Major				Total
		Liberal arts	Social science	Engineering	Natural science	Total
Gender	Male	303 (37.1)	755 (49.6)	2,003 (83.4)	496 (49.9)	3,557 (62.0)
	Female	513 (62.9)	768 (50.4)	399 (16.6)	498 (50.1)	2,178 (38.0)
	Total	816 (100)	1,523 (100)	2,402 (100)	994 (100)	5,735 (100)
Location	Within Seoul	255 (31.3)	333 (21.9)	452 (18.8)	207 (20.8)	1,247 (21.7)
	Close to Seoul	178 (21.8)	389 (25.5)	597 (24.9)	223 (22.4)	1,387 (24.2)
	Far from Seoul	383 (46.9)	801 (52.6)	1,353 (56.3)	564 (56.7)	3,101 (54.1)
	Total	816 (100)	1,523 (100)	2,402 (100)	994 (100)	5,735 (100)

Measurement Tool

Dependent Variable: Job Satisfaction

In this study, psychosocial, environmental, and economic factors such as overall job satisfaction, pay, job stability, working conditions, working hours, possibility for personal development, relationships with others, benefits, personnel system, social reputation, autonomy (authority), satisfaction with main duty, satisfaction with work compared to one’s levels of education and skills, suitability of one’s major for job, and helpfulness of one’s major to work were included as sub-factors of job satisfaction.

Independent Variable: Family Socioeconomic Background

Parents’ Occupation

In the case of parents’ occupation, input data from the respondents’ responses to questions about the change in their parents’ jobs and their job types classified 1 year ago according to Korea Standard Classification of Occupations was used. When selecting the input data, father’s job was selected on the preferential basis, and in the case that father’s job was not surveyed, mother’s job was selected. With respect to single-parent families, father or mother’s job was selected. Based on the results of occupational prestige of 30 jobs obtained from the 3rd survey on the inequality and justice of Korean society, the parents’ jobs were classified using the indicators of Yoo Hong-joon and Kim Wol-hwa, which were reconstructed as occupational status scores by classification of occupations. The classified occupations were graded as follows: manager (6), expert and associate expert (5), office worker (4), sale or service staff (3), agriculture, forestry and fishing industry worker (2), and elementary worker and simple machine operator (1). The scores were used for the analysis.

Parents’ Academic Background

Parents’ academic background was divided into seven steps: elementary school graduate or non-graduate (1), middle school graduate (2), high school graduate (3), two or three-year university graduate (4), four-year university graduate (5), graduate with a master’s who completes 39 courses (6), and graduate with a doctor’s degree (7). The scores were used for the analysis.

Parents’ Income

The households’ average monthly incomes measured by the researcher were used. Monthly average income is the parents’ gross income including earned income, bonus, property income, and pension for a year at the time when the subjects of this study entered university. The total income was calculated as monthly average household income, converted into natural logarithm values, and used for the analysis.

Mediating Variables

University Ranking

Criteria that rank universities may vary, and external factors such as school location and type of establishment are considered important factors in determining the university ranking rather than internal ones related to the quality of university. In this study, Seoul, capital areas, and provinces, which are the locations of universities were set up as the intervals of university ranking and used for the analysis.

Individual’s Efforts in VET

Individual’s efforts in VET mean the total cost and time for preparation to acquire certificate or license while in school. In this study, they were converted to natural logarithm values to meet the normal distribution hypothesis and used for the analysis.

Analysis Method

SPSS 23.0 and AMOS 18.0 statistical programs were used for the data analysis. First, frequency analysis and technical analysis were conducted to identify descriptive statistics of the prime variables. In addition, skewness and kurtosis were checked to see whether the variables’ measured values form a normal distribution. Second, a measure model was analyzed to examine the relevance of structural equation modeling and verify influencing relations between the variables. Third, each path coefficient in the final model was calculated to verify the significance of mediating variables with the use of Sobel Test.

Research Result

Research Model Analysis

Data Analysis and Research Procedures

This study initially analyzed the confirmatory factors to assess the goodness of fit of the research model. To maintain parsimony, the data on family socioeconomic background and job satisfaction were divided into three sub-variables at random. In terms of self-esteem and job performance, three variables were established for university ranking and individual’s VET efforts based on a theoretical background analysis. Subsequently, the study examined the appropriateness of each variable’s configuration and assessed the model’s goodness of fit using goodness-of-fit indices, as presented in Table 2 goodness-of-fit indices for the structural model.

Table 2.

Goodness-of-Fit Index Regarding Structural Model.

χ²	Df	CFI	NFI	RMSEA	p
1,088.530	43	.900	.919	.095	.000

Measure Model Verification

Evaluation of the measure model has to be preceded before examining the influence between the variables through the structural model analysis.

According to the measure model analysis, χ² value was 51.046 and dismissed, but considering the limitation that χ² verification was very sensitive to the sample size and that the larger the sample size, the more easily null hypothesis was to be dismissed, the result was not considered important. Therefore, in terms of other good-of-fit indexes, CFI was .972, TLI was .941, and RMSEA was .090, showing that all the indexes were calculated well and the measure variables appropriately reflected the actually-estimated latent variables. In addition, it was found that the standardized coefficients of measure variables were all significant (p < .001).

Structural Model Analysis

The following is the result of structural model analysis. The examination of goodness-of-fit index showed that χ² was 83.038, CFI was .972, and TLI was .942, demonstrating that this model was appropriate (Table 3).

Table 3.

Goodness-of-Fit Index Regarding Structural Model.

Model	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Structural model	83.038	38	.972	.941	.057
Goodness-of-fit standard value			.9 or more	.9 or more	.10 or less

The result of examining each path coefficient in detail is as presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Structural Model Analysis Result.

Path	Non-standardized coefficient	Standardized coefficient	Standard error	t-Value
Family socioeconomic background → Job satisfaction	0.843	0.211***	0.191	4.422
University ranking → Job satisfaction	2.386	0.482***	0.320	7.443
Individual’s VET efforts → Job satisfaction	0.429	0.087	0.282	1.521
Family socioeconomic background → University ranking	0.107	0.132*	0.047	2.281
Family socioeconomic background → Individual’s efforts in VET	0.029	0.036	0.049	0.594

p < 05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

According to the analysis results, family socioeconomic background influenced job satisfaction (Hypothesis 1). Family socioeconomic background had a significantly positive influence on job satisfaction (.843), which shows that family socioeconomic background is influential to the children’s career choice and further their job satisfaction.

Second, it was found that family socioeconomic background also had a positive influence on university ranking with .107 as its statistical significance (Hypothesis 2). It demonstrates that family socioeconomic background significantly influences the children’s going to university in Korean society.

Third, family socioeconomic background had a positive influence on individual’s efforts in VET with .29 as its statistical significance (Hypothesis 4), which was not statistically significant. It appears that family socioeconomic background does not have a significantly visible influence on even vocational competency development during the university life (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Analysis results, family socioeconomic background influenced job satisfaction and positive influence on university ranking and individual’s efforts in VET.

Verification of Mediating Effect Significance

Mediating effect refers to a variable included in the relation between two variables. When the causal model cannot be explained only with the relation between independent and dependent variables, it is input to verify the influence. Sobel Test was conducted to see the significance of each path identified through the structure model and the mediating effect of university ranking and vocational competency development training (Table 5). Sobel presented an equation that can calculate Sobel’s Z-Score to analyze the effect of mediating variables between independent and dependent variables. In general, when Z value of Sobel Test is bigger than 1.96 or less than −1.96, the null hypothesis is dismissed, and the mediating effect is judged to be statistically significant.

Table 5.

Mediating Effect Verification.

Path	Standard error (SE)	Sobel-Z score
Family socioeconomic background → University ranking → Job satisfaction	0.117	2.177*
Family socioeconomic background → Individual’s efforts in VET → Job satisfaction	0.022	0.551

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

First, the influence of mediating effect of university ranking on the relation between family socioeconomic background of the respondents set up in this study and their job satisfaction was verified.

In terms of Hypothesis 3, it was found that the mediating effect of university hierarchy was significant in the relation between family socioeconomic background and job satisfaction (2.177*).

Regarding Hypothesis 5, the significance of mediating effect of individual’s efforts in VET was not identified. This result demonstrates that people in Korean society may find fulfilling jobs according to university ranking (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Verification of mediating effect significance of university ranking and individual’s efforts in VET.

Conclusion and Discussion

The purpose of this study is to analyze the effect of family socio-economic background on university graduates’ university rankings, efforts in VET, and job satisfaction. The following conclusions were drawn as the results of analysis using “Korea’s Graduates Occupational Mobility Survey.”

First, family socioeconomic background also affected job satisfaction, which is the psychological quality of life in the workplace that corresponds to an individual’s adult life. This result contradicts that Biazotto et al. (2022) who found that the family socioeconomic background of college graduates does not affect job satisfaction. The reason for such conflicting results may simply be that the data and research methods are different. Or, it may be because young people in Korea are more influenced by their socioeconomic background than those in other countries. Considering that job satisfaction affects the quality of life, the influence of this socioeconomic background can be said to be a major threat to Korean society. Also, this result is meaningful in that it demonstrates the fact that not only external factors such as income (Jiang et al., 2017; Pohlig et al., 2020) and genetic factors (Illies & Judge, 2003) but also individual environmental factors influence job satisfaction. Since socioeconomic background formed by parents cannot be changed by an individual’s choice or effort, we raise the issue of inequality in Korean society based on this result. It is necessary to investigate how family socioeconomic background works to find practical ways to alleviate social inequality. As this study could not identify how parents’ educational background and income affect their children’s job satisfaction, follow-up studies that can qualitatively explain the relation between family socioeconomic background and job satisfaction may be needed. For example, it revealed whether there was a difference in the career guidance method for children depending on their parents’ educational background or in informal learning at home depending on their parents’ role models.

Second, the effect of family socioeconomic background on job satisfaction is stronger for higher-ranked universities, suggesting that university ranking affects non-economic values as well. Previous studies have focused on income as the outcome of university education and identified the fact that graduates of prestigious universities have higher economic performance (Brand & Halaby, 2003; Oh, 2007). This study newly discovered that the ranking of universities also affects non-economic values 3such as job satisfaction. Job satisfaction affects individual job performance and organizational performance (Whitman et al., 2010), physical and psychological health at work (Bowling et al., 2010; Faragher et al., 2005), and positive career development (Ko, 2012). With consideration for the significant influence of job satisfaction on individuals, it is noteworthy that the influence of family socioeconomic background on job satisfaction increases depending on which university one attends. In other words, follow-up studies are needed to explore the differences in the career education programs provided according to the ranking of universities and the differences in career preparation behaviors of students by university.

Finally, the mediating effect of family socioeconomic background on job satisfaction was found to be insignificant, suggesting that the effect of participation in VET, which is a non-formal education, as opposed to college, which is a formal schooling in Korea, is small. This result does not support the result of Lee and Chung (2020) that there is a significant difference in participation in vocational training according to socioeconomic background. The reason for such different research results may be that training for job preparation and training for job competency improvement were not separated and investigated. In addition, this research result contradicts the research result of Cho (2018) that participation in education and training improves job satisfaction. This may be because the analysis was conducted without considering whether participants passively participated in the education provided by the organization or voluntarily participated for the purpose of developing their own career and competency. Alternatively, it can be inferred that efforts to improve vocational skills through non-formal education do not significantly affect changes in subjective perceptions such as job satisfaction. A follow-up study to identify this cause will be required.

In addition, it is necessary to investigate how well efforts in VET meet career goals and how useful they are to properly explain this phenomenon, which was not identified in this study. The fact that the level of influence of family socioeconomic background on job satisfaction does not change with individual’s efforts in VET means that Korean society has limitations in explaining meritocracy. In addition, it should be noted that family socioeconomic background, the level of quantitative participation in VET, and job satisfaction are all described as having positive relations. Before emphasizing the participation in competency development at an individual level, a social safety net may be needed to expand the access to learning opportunities for individual competencies.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Hyupsung University Research Grant of 2024.

ORCID iD

Eun Bee Kim

Data Availability Statement

This manuscript is not duplicate submission and it observes the code of research ethics.

References

Agarwal

Brunello

Rocco

(2019). The pathways to college (IZA Discussion Paper No. 12691). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3475797

Biazotto

Bittencourt

de Araújo

Soares Fernandes

Göttems

Rodrigues

Neves

Amorim

(2022). Comparison between students admitted through regular path and affirmative action systems in a Brazilian public medical school. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 13, 251–263. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S347387

Björklund

Jäntti

Lindquist

M. J.

(2009). Family background and income during the rise of the welfare state: Brother correlations in income for Swedish men born 1932–1968. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 671–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.02.006

Bowling

N. A.

Eschleman

K. J.

Wang

(2010). A meta-analytic examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well-being. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 915–934. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X478557

Brand

J. E.

Halaby

C. N.

(2003). Regression and matching estimates of the effects of elite college attendance on career outcomes [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Sociology Association, Chicago, IL, United States.

Carnevale

A. P.

Rose

S. J.

(2004). Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and selective college admissions. In Kahlenberg

R. D.

(Ed.), America’s untapped resource: Low-income students in higher education (pp. 101–56). The Century Foundation.

Cho

(2018). The effect of service training on job satisfaction and customer intentiveness in the food industry and employees. International Journal of Tourism Management and Sciences, 33(4), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.21719/IJTMS.33.4.16

Faragher

E. B.

Cass

Cooper

C. L.

(2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2002.006734

Hoque

M. Z.

Afrad

M. S. I.

(2014). Influences of socio-economic factors on job satisfaction of readymade garments workers. International Journal of Research in Commerce, IT and Management, 4(9), 17–21.

10.

Illies

Judge

T. A.

(2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 750–759. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.750

11.

Jang

Lee

(2021). Longitudinal study on the expenditure of private education for employment among woman student in university. The Journal of Lifelong Education and HRD, 17(1), 81–105. https://www.earticle.net/Article/A390011.

12.

Jiang

J. J.

(2017). Socioeconomic factors affecting the job satisfaction levels of self-employed container truck drivers: A case study from Shanghai Port. Maritime Policy & Management, 44(5), 641–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2017.132618

13.

Jin

Waldman

(2020), Lateral moves, promotions, and task-specific human capital: Theory and evidence. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 36(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewz017

14.

Kalil

Ryan

(2020). Parenting practices and socioeconomic gaps in childhood outcomes. The Future of Children, 30(1), 29–54. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/parenting-practices-socioeconomic-gaps-childhood/docview/2434475571/se-2

15.

Kim

(2021). The hierarchical culture in Korean society: Origins, drivers, and educational legacies. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 31(4), 33–69. https://doi.org/10.32465/ksocio.2021.31.4.002

16.

Kim

Jang

Kim

Choi

(2009). International comparative study on life patterns of children and adolescents. Ministry of Health and Welfare and Family.

17.

(2012). The relationships among professional competence, job satisfaction and career development confidence for chefs in Taiwan. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 1004–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.12.004

18.

Korean Educational Statistics Service. (2021). Higher education institution enrollment rate by year. https://kess.kedi.re.kr/index

19.

Lee

Chung

(2020). Critical discourse analysis of the spoon class theory with focus on educational inequality. The Journal of Politics of Education, 27(3), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.52183/KSPE.2020.27.3.73

20.

Lee

Koh

(2019). College ranking and life cycle wage in Korea (Korean Labor Institute Panel Working Paper No. 1). Korean Labor Institute.

21.

Liu

Thomas

Zhang

(2010). College quality, earnings, and job satisfaction: Evidence from recent college graduates. Journal of Labor Research, 31, 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-010-9086-1

22.

Lois

Riedl

(2022). Interplay between different forms of power and meritocratic considerations shapes fairness perceptions. Scientific Report, 12, 11428. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15613-9

23.

Marshall

Swift

(1993). Social class and social justice. The British Journal of Sociology, 44(2), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/591217

24.

Mitchell

J. A.

Esnard

T. R.

(2014). Socio-economic factors and job satisfaction among public health care registered nurses in Trinidad and Tobago. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 4(6), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v4i6.538

25.

Muskens

M. M. E.

Frankenhuis

W. E.

Borghans

A. H.

(2019). Low-income students in higher education: Undermatching predicts decreased satisfaction toward the final stage in college, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(7), 1296–1310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01022-1

26.

(2007). University hierarchy and labor market outcome: Wage differentials between provincial and Seoul metropolitan area university graduates. Korean Labour Economic Association Dissertation, 30(2), 87–118.

27.

Olfindo

(2018). Rethinking vocational education in the Philippines: Does it really lead to higher wages? Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 35(1), 79–100.

28.

Pagán-Rodríguez

(2014). Disability, training and job satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 122(3), 865–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0719-2

29.

Park

(2022). Fairness perception regarding income inequality among young people: Focusing on the diversity of unequal relationships. Economy and Society, 135, 278–313. https://doi.org/10.18207/criso.2022.135.278

30.

Peng

Wang

Lin

(2019). A meta-analysis on the relation between fluid intelligence and reading/mathematics: Effects of tasks, age, and social economics status. Psychological Bulletin, 145(2), 189–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000182.PMID:30652909

31.

Pohlig

Israel

Dingeldey

(2020). Does the household context matter for job satisfaction among low-wage workers? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 43(3), 1028–1058. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X20975865

32.

Psacharopoulos

(1994). Returns to investment in education: A global update. World Development, 22(9), 1325–1343.

33.

Roksa

Kinsley

(2019). The role of family support in facilitating academic success of low-income students. Research in Higher Education, 60(4), 415–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9517-z

34.

Saunders

(1997). Social mobility in Britain: An empirical evaluation of two competing explanations. Sociology, 31(2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038597031002005

35.

Schultz

T. W.

(1961). Investment in human capital. American Economic Review, 51(1), 1–17.

36.

Selvitopu

Kaya

(2023). A meta-analytic review of the effect of socioeconomic status on academic performance. Journal of Education, 203(4), 768–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220574211031978

37.

Sharp

Weidman

(1987). Early careers of undergraduate humanities majors [Paper presentation]. Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC, United States.

38.

Tomaszewski

Xiang

Western

(2020). Student engagement as a mediator of the effects of socio-economic status on academic performance among secondary school students in Australia. British Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 610–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3599

39.

Whitman

D. S.

Van Rooy

D. L.

Viswesvaran

(2010). Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and performance in work units: A meta-analysis of collective construct relations. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 41–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01162.x

40.

Zhou

(2019). Equalization or selection? Reassessing the “meritocratic power” of a college degree in intergenerational income mobility. American Sociological Review, 84(3), 459–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419844992