2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Pathological paradigms or deficit thinking, particularly when held by engineering educators, pose significant challenges for students from low-income backgrounds studying engineering. Many students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds may conceal their socioeconomic identity to assimilate with more affluent peers, while not only their personal choices, but also their educational and career choices are often constrained by financial considerations. National data indicate that only 51% of low-income students enroll in college compared to 89% of high-income students and 64% from middle-income students [1]—a disparity that reflects systemic inequities in access to higher education. Of the low-income students that enroll in college, many encounter academic barriers such as limited preparation in mathematics [2-3], lower retention rates in college degree programs [4], extended time to graduation, and difficulty concentrating and focusing on their learning due to challenging living situations such as housing and financial insecurity [5]. To add to this education debt [20-21], students from low-income backgrounds face additional hurdles in the engineering fields. Engineering is perceived as difficult and inflexible with implicit biases about who belongs in engineering [6-8], a culture that often emphasizes exclusivity and competition [9, 2-3], a curriculum widely regarded as demanding and rigid [10, 11-15], and an environment often described as having a “chilly climate” [2-3]. These educational barriers are compounded by further marginalizing already disadvantaged students.

Research on poverty highlights that individuals experiencing scarcity often prioritize immediate needs in their decision-making, benefiting from effective attentional focus [16-18]. Economically disadvantaged students are often influenced not just by financial limitations, but also by constraints in personal, external, and social resources available [17]. Despite these challenges, many low-income students who are recognized for their “talent” and interest in mathematics or science often choose to study engineering. They view it as an opportunity to escape from a cycle of poverty [19,15]. Engineering is perceived as a pathway to social and economic advancement.

This qualitative research study delves into the narratives of engineering students who successfully navigated the engineering fields despite financial instability. The research study employs Scarcity Theory [16-18] from behavioral economics as its theoretical framework to weave the author’s critical autoethnography with low-income student narratives, analyzed through crystallization methods that foreground positionality and reflective inquiry.

The findings highlight the hidden strengths, adaptive resourcefulness, and creative problem-solving capacities developed by engineers from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. By reframing financial hardship as a context that fosters resilience, innovation, and systems thinking, the study advances an asset-based understanding of low-income students’ contribution to engineering education and practice. The discussion offers implications for engineering educators, educational administrators, and education program designers seeking to create more inclusive equity-minded learning environments that value the diverse socioeconomic experiences shaping engineering expertise.