The study has focused on student entry into low-level vocational further education/training. The aims were: 1) to identify patterns of participation in three types of vocational training within inner London; 2) to compare the characteristics of students undertaking different courses; and 3) to establish the relative importance of a variety of factors (socio-structural, attitudinal and 'area' influences) in accounting for participation in different kinds of training. A number of hypotheses about the contribution of these potentially influential factors have been tested. Attention has been paid to vocational preferences and job ambitions, due to their close links with training choices. The study adopted an inter-disciplinary approach. Analyses of the spatial patterns of entry into the three types of training (from maps of students' home addresses) revealed significant differences. These spatial patterns of student over- and under-representation were found to be related to socio-economic characteristics of neighbourhoods, and provided evidence of possible 'area' influences. Socio-structural factors, particularly social class, were strongly related to participation in all three types of training. Other factors (sex, parents'/siblings' employment fields, and vocational subjects studied at school), however, were important in accounting for students' particular choices of course. Job ambitions and attitudes towards employment were also closely related to entry. Marked differences in attitudes and ambitions were identified between male and female students, and there was evidence of sex-stereotyping in perceptions of particular kinds of employment. Attitudes, however, were not associated with area differences in student over- or under-representation. Explanatory analyses indicated that parents'/siblings' employment fields, and the subjects students had studied at school, were of major importance in accounting for particular training choices. Influences related to residential area were significant only for construction training. These results support the view that socio-structural factors are major determinants of low-level vocational training choices.