Higher education, family, and curriculum: Structural implications of Goldin’s approach

Abstract

This article aims to analyze the curricular implications of the paradox between educational equality and labor inequality formulated by Claudia Goldin, in order to examine how the design of the university curriculum may contribute to reproducing or transforming gender gaps in the labor market. Through a conceptual reflection that brings together labor economics and curriculum studies, the tensions between professional careers, caregiving responsibilities, and higher education are explored. The analysis argues that certain institutional assumptions such as linear career trajectories, rigid schedules, the centrality of in-person attendance, and evaluation based on homogeneous timeframes, tend to reinforce the incentives for continuous availability that prevail in the labor market. Thus, even though women have attained higher levels of education, structural conditions persist that limit substantive economic equality. It is concluded that the curriculum is not neutral, but rather a device that shapes the notion of merit and the figure of the expected professional. Therefore, advancing toward greater equity requires structural reforms aimed at flexibilizing trajectories, recognizing interruptions due to caregiving, and assessing competencies rather than time spent, thereby aligning university education with a broader conception of justice and social sustainability.