[WS:] As I understand it, for the liberal & progressive types it comes in the form of two tacit assumptions. First is the belief that education, especially college education, is THE way to abolish social inequality. If social inequality is round us, it implies that the educational system is not good enough. By the same logic, if you pray for rain and the rain does not fall, you obviously are not praying hard enough.
The second assumption, linked to the first, is that all people are the same - at least as wanting to have education, especially college education. If they do not get, it implies that the educational system sucks, for otherwise they would want to get. And believing that some people may want, say, a vocational training instead of college education is tantamount to reproduction of social inequality, per first assumption
All alternative explanations, such as anti-intellectualism and kindred cultural beliefs that do not see much value in education at all are not acceptable, because they would contradict these two beliefs, which I think are central to liberal & progressive identity. They are central because in their absence they would need to either cease to be liberals and become revolutionaries of one kind or another, or otherwise admit that their vision of social change may be wrong but it is a convenient face saving device, so they stick to it anyway.
Of course, this is only my interpretation. I tried to challenge some of my liberal acquaintances on this a couple of time, but all I got was defensiveness and questioning of my motives.
As to the relationship between gender and occupational status you may want to check out Reskin & Roos, "Job Queues, Gender Queues" and Abbott, "The System of Professions" - both if memory serves speak to the issue why some occupations settle for a lesser status.
Wojtek