The highest education level amongst fathers and mothers (university greater education BTEC HND) was in F. Employees predominated in F and F and Castanospermine web manual workers in F. Going to university was `very important’ for 
a lot more F than F and F . As shown in Table , we identified that QoL-psychological, AES, QoL-social relationships and QoL-environment differed substantially among the 3 faculties. All scores had been higher in F: psychological (. vs.in F), social relationships (. vs.in F), andenvironment (. vs.in F). Precisely the same was correct for the AES (. vs.in F). Table shows the relationships among WHOQOLBREF psychological subscale and socio-demographic qualities, AES, QoL-social relationships and QoLenvironment, for each and every faculty separately. QoL-psychological was not considerably linked with any socio-demographic issue besides the father’s educational level in F. For all faculties, QoL-psychological correlated positively with QoL-social relationships and QoL-environment. QoL-psychological correlated positively with all the AES for vocationalapplied courses in the faculties F (correlation coefficient p .) and F (correlation coefficient p .), but the link was damaging for generalacademic courses at F (correlation coefficient -p .). These differences concerned all items on the AES, but principally the three products issue solving, team functioning, and supervision path of other individuals, which had been linked with QoLpsychological. Table shows the outcomes obtained with the a number of regression model for WHOQOL-BREF-psychological subscale in terms of socio-demographic elements, AES, QoL-social relationships and QoL-environment subscales. No socio-demographic factor had a substantial effect in the level, whether or not the model included interaction terms using the faculties. There was a very substantial impact for the faculty, as QoL-psychological was higher for F and F than for F (regression coefficient -. vs. aboutfor F and F). Far more specifically, the AES associated positively to QoL-psychological for F and F, but negatively for F. QoL-Psychological correlated positively with QoL-social relationships (regression coefficient p .) and QoL-environmental (regression coefficient p .).Discussion This study improves our understanding from the associations between the psychological excellent of life, the social and environmental contexts, plus the acquisition of academic employability capabilities amongst social sciences students. QoL-psychological, academic employability capabilities, QoL-social relationships and QoL-environment (living circumstances and lifestyles on campus) differed markedly among the students in the faculties in Luxembourg (F), Belgium (F) and Romania (F). QoL-psychological was positively and similarly associated with QoL-social relationships and QoL-environmental 
for the three faculties, and was associated for the perceived value of going to university and socio-demographic things (qualified status, level of education on the parents – all of which are major components in developing social inequalities in health) at all faculties. The association amongst QoL-psychological and academic employability skillsBaumann et al. BMC Psychiatry , : http:biomedcentral-XPage ofTable PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21645391?dopt=Abstract Socio-demographic qualities of respondents: mean (SD) orF (Luxembourg) N F (Belgium) N F (Romania) N MCB-613 p-value Age Sex Father’s educational level Female Male Mother’s Educational level Father’s expert status Manual worker Employee Mother’s qualified status Senior officer Manual work.The highest education level amongst fathers and mothers (university greater education BTEC HND) was in F. Workers predominated in F and F and manual workers in F. Going to university was `very important’ for far more F than F and F . As shown in Table , we discovered that QoL-psychological, AES, QoL-social relationships and QoL-environment differed significantly between the three faculties. All scores were higher in F: psychological (. vs.in F), social relationships (. vs.in F), andenvironment (. vs.in F). Precisely the same was correct for the AES (. vs.in F). Table shows the relationships involving WHOQOLBREF psychological subscale and socio-demographic traits, AES, QoL-social relationships and QoLenvironment, for every single faculty separately. QoL-psychological was not drastically linked with any socio-demographic factor other than the father’s educational level in F. For all faculties, QoL-psychological correlated positively with QoL-social relationships and QoL-environment. QoL-psychological correlated positively with the AES for vocationalapplied courses at the faculties F (correlation coefficient p .) and F (correlation coefficient p .), however the hyperlink was damaging for generalacademic courses at F (correlation coefficient -p .). These differences concerned all items of the AES, but principally the three items problem solving, team working, and supervision path of other people, which have been connected with QoLpsychological. Table shows the results obtained using the many regression model for WHOQOL-BREF-psychological subscale in terms of socio-demographic variables, AES, QoL-social relationships and QoL-environment subscales. No socio-demographic factor had a considerable effect in the level, whether or not the model included interaction terms with the faculties. There was a extremely significant impact for the faculty, as QoL-psychological was higher for F and F than for F (regression coefficient -. vs. aboutfor F and F). A lot more particularly, the AES associated positively to QoL-psychological for F and F, but negatively for F. QoL-Psychological correlated positively with QoL-social relationships (regression coefficient p .) and QoL-environmental (regression coefficient p .).Discussion This study improves our understanding with the associations between the psychological top quality of life, the social and environmental contexts, as well as the acquisition of academic employability expertise amongst social sciences students. QoL-psychological, academic employability skills, QoL-social relationships and QoL-environment (living conditions and lifestyles on campus) differed markedly amongst the students in the faculties in Luxembourg (F), Belgium (F) and Romania (F). QoL-psychological was positively and similarly related with QoL-social relationships and QoL-environmental for the three faculties, and was connected for the perceived value of going to university and socio-demographic aspects (expert status, level of education from the parents – all of which are major factors in making social inequalities in wellness) at all faculties. The association between QoL-psychological and academic employability skillsBaumann et al. BMC Psychiatry , : http:biomedcentral-XPage ofTable PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21645391?dopt=Abstract Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents: mean (SD) orF (Luxembourg) N F (Belgium) N F (Romania) N p-value Age Sex Father’s educational level Female Male Mother’s Educational level Father’s expert status Manual worker Employee Mother’s expert status Senior officer Manual work.