Change in job values during education

Abstract

Job values are a central topic in research on occupational attainment. However, studies show conflicting results as to when values emerge. It has been argued that values are deep‐rooted in a person and acquired in early youth. Other findings indicate that values change during education. Finally, the importance of adult experiences in and out of the labour market has been emphasised in explaining preferences for work. This paper examines the influence of higher education on change in job values. The results show that job values do change during education, but these changes are small and seem to be unrelated to sex and type of education. Differences in job values between men and women, and mainly between students on different programmes, are maintained during education, indicating that choice of education is the first step in realising one’s preferences for work.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Arne Mastekaasa for valuable comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. I also wish to thank Bente Abrahamsen, Dag Dæhlen and the journal’s referees for useful comments.

Notes

1. In much of the existing literature there is a mix in the use of terms like values, preferences, orientations, etc. However, the kinds of values in this article (and other studies) should more be understood as kinds of priorities that form a certain part of work orientations and not a reflection of values in the sense used by psychologists.

2. Having a job with flexible working hours may well be an aspect of wishing autonomy in work. However, this job feature is considered as a ‘leisure value’ due to the assertion that this kind of reward makes it, to a certain degree, possible to have control over one’s leisure time.

3. It may be argued that Hakim implies that women with different preferences choose different educational programmes. Consequently, using Hakim’s assumptions in this study may fail since the students have already made their occupational choice. However, even if Hakim to some degree is vague at this point, she distinguishes between occupational choice and job choice. She argues that lifestyle preferences do not influence occupational choices, ‘but they do determine choice of job’ (Hakim, 2002, p. 450).

4. Hakim’s studies and her Preference Theory have been debated. First, she has been criticised for emphasising women’s unconstrained choices about how they wish to live their lives and for neglecting the constraints that affect women’s preferences and choices (see e.g. Crompton & Harris, 1998a; McRae, 2003). Second, the Preference. Theory has also been claimed to rest ‘on somewhat dubious foundations’ (Crompton & Harris, 1998b, p. 147). Even if the significance of preferences versus constraints is not the topic in this article, it seems worthwhile to mention this disagreement.

5. Additionally, the database is designed for a further two samples. These are planned in 2006 (wave 3) and 2008 (wave 4), i.e. three and four years after graduating. Also, the database includes answers from a second and a third panel.

6. In wave 2 the students were asked to grade the importance of the statements on a scale from 1, indicating not important at all, to 5, indicating very important. Responses to values 1 and 2 are treated together and, consequently, the scale is from 1 not important to 4 very important in the second wave as well.

7. Previous research has shown an impact of social‐class origin and age in addition to gender in explaining job values. Due to the fact that some students have previous experiences from paid work, this may be important to consider as well. I have estimated regression models that include parents’ education, age and experiences from paid work. Few parameters were found to be significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level and only minor changes in the models.