Against the backdrop of volatility and instability of the economy, including corporate sector, there is an increasing demand for "agentic", proactive behavior of individuals in the labor market, for instance, corporate employees, as well as entrepreneurs and non-traditional workers (e.g. freelancers). This is a significant challenge for education systems around the world, including Europe (Reeve and Shin, 2020), and, in particular, higher education (Klementic, 2017). The key theoretical framework for considering the problem of agency in this paper is, on the one hand, the theory of human capital (including the concept of the “entrepreneurial element” of human capital (Schultz, 1975), which assumes the differentiated ability of people to adapt to changes in a situation of market disequilibrium), and, on the other hand, the concept of neo-structuration (Sorokin, Mironenko, 2025), which asserts the growing dependence of the effective adaptation of social structures (including corporations, industries and the economy as a whole) to changing conditions - upon individual agency.

This paper analyzes data from an online questionnaire survey conducted in Russia in the fall of 2024. The total number of respondents was 959 people aged 18 to 30 years. We focus on the part of the sample comprising students (more than 250 people) and university graduates (more than 550 respondents). The work is structured in the following logic: first, we analyze the opportunities and conditions created in the education system for the formation and manifestation of agency (using existing concepts and measurement tools, including “agentic engagement” (Klementic, Reeve)). Secondly, we look at the practical behavior associated with the use of relevant opportunities (and related inequalities), and, thirdly, for those respondents who participate in the labor market, an analysis of correlations with their current labor status and the level of "agency" realized within it is carried out.

The analysis shows a fairly high level of formation of conditions for the development of student agency in the higher education system - much higher than in school. At the same time, the actual use of available opportunities in the form of appropriate “agentic” behavior, as well as generally “agentic” practices in the course of obtaining education, is characteristic only of a portion of respondents (which suggests inequality), with noticeable variations; in particular, females, people under 23, and residents of settlements with a population of less than 250 thousand people demonstrate less “agent” behavior in the process of obtaining higher education.

The final finding relates to the close correlation between the “agentic” behavior in higher education system and “agentic” position in the labor market (especially illustrative are university graduates), including primarily: entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship.

As indicators of the conditions within the framework of formal school education for the development of independence, two questions were considered: 1) experience of training in entrepreneurship or business; 2) experience of project activities. To assess the conditions at the level of higher education, a special block of questions was developed that described the opportunities for agency formation in the framework of obtaining higher education. Firstly, the opportunities for demonstrating agency at the university were specifically assessed (for example, participation in the student council or other formal student organization, participation in organizing informal events at the university, students proposing new topics for teachers to discuss in class and the ability to independently choose elective subjects for study, posting complaints or comments about the work of teachers or other aspects of university life and students' assessment of the work of teachers through a specially created information collection system at the university, etc.). Both the presence of opportunities and their use were analyzed. In addition, the behavior of respondents in the educational process was assessed separately: answering questions in class, actively expressing their opinions in class, asking questions in class, participating in discussions or debates in class, offering their point of view that differs from the opinion of teachers or other students, initiating discussions in class, etc. To analyze the overall manifestation of agency among university students, a composite Index of "Agency in the Higher Education System" was calculated.

Most often were noted opportunities that were somehow related to the self-organization of students and their joint activities. Participation in the student council or other formalized student organization (88.8%) and participation in organizing informal events at the university (82.3%). On the other hand, less than 60% of mentions is related to students’ assessment of the quality of work of the university’s teaching staff. In addition, respondents’ behavior in the educational process was assessed separately. Respondents addressed three types of behavior in university classes with varying frequency in at least 90% of cases: answering questions in class (97.6% of respondents did this in university classes with varying frequency), actively expressing their opinions in class (93.6%), asking questions in class (92.6%). The least frequently used behavior types in university classes are suggesting changes to the content of university classes or homework (39.3%) and suggesting changes to the assessment system (34.0%). The values of the Index of "Agency in the Higher Education System" demonstrate that: ⎯ Males, compared to females, demonstrate agency in the university to a greater extent: the index value is 1.68 and 1.51, respectively. ⎯ The agency of the 23-27 age group is higher than in other age groups: the index value is 1.66 versus 1.46-1.50 in other age groups. ⎯ The geographical factor affects the agency of students. Agency in the higher education system increases non-linearly as the population of the locality in which the respondent lives increases. The dividing point into two aggregated groups can be considered the population of a locality of 250 thousand people. The final finding relates to the close correlation between the “agentic” behavior in higher education system and “agentic” position in the labor market (especially illustrative are university graduates), including primarily: entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship.

1.Archer M. S. Can Complexity add anything to Critical Realism and the Morphogenetic Approach? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2024. 2.Sorokin P. S., Mironenko I. A. The problem of personality proactivity in interaction with the environment in modern international discourse. Psychological Journal. 2022, vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 90-100. 3.Sorokin, P. S., & Mironenko, I. A. (2025). The Replicability Crisis and Human Agency in the Neo-Structured World. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 59(1), 12. 4.Klemenčič, M. (2017). From student engagement to student agency: Conceptual considerations of European policies on student-centered learning in higher education. Higher education policy, 30, 69-85. 5.Klemenčič, M. (2023). A theory of student agency in higher education. In Research Handbook on the Student Experience in Higher Education (pp. 25-40). Edward Elgar Publishing. 6.Kuzminov Ya. I., Sorokin P. S., Frumin I. D. General and special skills as components of human capital: new challenges for the theory and practice of education // Foresight. 2019. Vol. 13. No. 2. pp. 19-41 7.Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual review of sociology, 36(1), 1-20. 8.Marginson, S. (2023). Antecedents of Student Self-Formation in Social Theory and Educational Philosophy: What Do They Tell Us About Structure and Agency?. In Student Agency and Self-Formation in Higher Education (pp. 29-65). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. 9.Schultz, T. W. (1975). The value of the ability to deal with disequilibria. Journal of economic literature, 13(3), 827-846. 10.Reeve, J., & Shin, S. H. (2020). How teachers can support students’ agentic engagement. Theory Into Practice, 59(2), 150-161.