Smart Enough
The way students judge themselves and others can perpetuate inequity.
By Amy Betz, Amy Kramer, and Emily Dringenberg
Engineers are assumed to be smart. However, scholars have demonstrated that rather than existing as an inherent trait of individuals, smartness is really a cultural practice, which results in hierarchical social positioning (for example, students are judged as more or less smart). Evidence shows that the cultural practice of smartness functions in oppressive ways and therefore has direct implications for equity in engineering education. Yet, little research has focused on undergraduate engineering students’ understanding of what it means to be smart.
We interviewed 20 students at a predominantly White institution about the role of smartness in their education. The participants collectively defined “smart” as an individual capacity for working efficiently. They described making judgments about how smart they or others are based on a perceived ratio of outcome (for instance, a test score) to effort (for example, how hard a person had to try to earn that score). Students described evaluating smartness by social comparison, consistently describing their goal as achieving higher grades than others with less effort, and they speculated about how much effort someone must have had to put in to obtain their outcome, which introduces bias and can propagate systemic inequity.
Constructing a hierarchy of smartness by framing academic success as above-average results makes success for all students a statistical impossibility and reinforces the problematic idea that only some students are smart enough to do well in engineering. For the students, being smart is not about learning but about constructing a comfortable place in the hierarchy of smartness. Making judgments about how hard people have to try allows students to preserve their identities as “smart enough” even if others achieved better results.
The students also believed that being recognized as smart enables access to necessary resources—for example, those who are perceived as smart are allowed to contribute to discussions and teamwork. Students thought that if their instructors did not recognize them as smart, they would not be willing to listen to them and answer questions or to assist with letters of recommendation and research positions. In other words, students conveyed a shared belief that people deemed as smart will be included rather than dismissed.
We recommend educators change or eliminate common practices such as sharing the average and distribution of grades, limiting time to complete exams, and pacing classroom instruction based on feedback from the most vocal students. Educational approaches are a key aspect of smartness as a cultural practice, impacting how students learn to understand themselves in the hierarchy of smartness and perpetuating inequity in who is recognized as smart. A shift toward mastery of engineering skills rather than just scoring above average may disrupt smartness as a cultural practice and create a more equitable learning experience.
Finally, because beliefs about smartness are frequently transmitted implicitly, we advocate for explicit instruction about factors that influence who is recognized as smart. For example, instructors could collaborate as needed with other experts (such as sociologists or critical race scholars) to provide direct instruction in engineering classrooms about the ways in which smartness has been historically and culturally constructed to reflect White, middle-class, and male values, and how this fact directly contributes to inequities in engineering. Instructors could include a reflection prompt about who is perceived as smart and why, provide references in the syllabus to explain why average scores on exams aren’t shared, or allow opportunities for re-work on assignments. Another simple step for faculty and students is to avoid using the word “smart” for a week, then reflect on when and why the urge to employ it arose. Without action to explicitly reveal and disrupt smartness as an oppressive cultural practice, the status quo of inequitable participation in engineering will persist.
Amy Betz is an associate professor of mechanical and nuclear engineering and the assistant dean for retention, diversity, and inclusion in Kansas State University’s College of Engineering. Amy Kramer is a lecturer in the Department of Engineering Education at Ohio State University. Emily Dringenberg is an assistant professor in the Department of Engineering Education at Ohio State.
This article is excerpted from “Smartness in Engineering: Beliefs of Undergraduate Engineering Students” in the July 2022 issue of the Journal of Engineering Education.
© Getty Images