Gender and racial inequalities continue to shape the opportunities college graduates have when they enter the workforce. A new study by Institute for Diversity Science (IDS) Affiliate Ran Liu and Graduate Fellow Thao Phuong Pham finds that horizontal mismatch, or working in a job outside one’s field of study, is an important driver of wage inequalities among educated Americans.
For the study, which was supported by an IDS Seed Grant, Liu and Pham used nationally representative American Community Survey data from over 3 million college graduates, along with new measures of alignment between people’s education field and their jobs. They found that women and members of non-majority groups are more likely than White men to work in occupations unrelated to their degrees. This misalignment is costly. People who experience horizontal mismatch report lower wages and reduced job satisfaction.
The study also highlights the role of educational field specificity—or the extent to which a degree funnels graduates into a small number of specific occupations. Mismatch rates are lower in highly specific educational fields than in more general fields. For example, fields such as electrical repair, construction services, and culinary arts rank among the most specific, and often lead directly into related work. Fields like the social sciences, English and literature, and history are more general. They provide broad skills but are associated with less linear career paths and lower match rates. Of these more general areas, Liu explains, “These fields may provide valuable transferable skills, but their graduates face a different challenge as they often end up in a much wider range of jobs. This could also link to a lower level of horizontal match between what they learn in college and what they do at work.”
While there are more direct pathways between school and jobs in specific educational fields, the benefits are uneven. Women are more likely than men to hold specialized degrees, yet they receive smaller wage premiums for those credentials. Racial disparities are pronounced as well: Asian graduates tend to experience stronger gains from specialization than White workers, while Black graduates benefit least and face steeper earnings losses when mismatched. Notably, the findings indicate that Asian women do not share the same advantages seen among Asian men, which suggests intersectional barriers within seemingly advantaged groups.
Liu and Pham argue that increasing representation in highly specific fields alone, especially STEM, will not close wage gaps if graduates are not able to translate degrees into employment that aligns with their education. They call for policies that expand equitable hiring processes, improve matching opportunities, and reduce penalties for workers who end up in mismatched roles. Strengthening career counseling, mentorship, and employer partnerships could help ensure that educational investments translate into equitable labor market returns.
Liu and Pham’s study emphasizes that educational attainment alone does not guarantee equal opportunity. Educational inequalities aren’t just in who is able to earn a degree, but also who is positioned to utilize it. They say that “The transition from college to work is structured in ways that continue to reproduce inequality even among highly educated workers. Even when equipped with specific training and strong academic backgrounds, women and racial minorities still face systematic challenges in securing matching jobs and receiving equitable wage returns.”