Why I Don’t Display my Designations: The Myth of Meritocracy
“Are you not putting your designations on your business card because you’re embarrassed that you don’t have your master’s yet?”
I was surprised by my co-worker’s question. In that moment, I was unsure how to respond other than to say, “No, I am not embarrassed. It’s just a personal choice!”.
That was a brief interaction as my team at the time was preparing to print new business cards. However, similar interactions have happened since then. I have debated putting my designations on my cover letters, LinkedIn profile, proposals, keynote presentations, and so forth. Now after many years, unless specifically requested, I opt to leave out the letters behind my name. Ultimately, I do not wish to uphold the myth of meritocracy:
Intelligence + Ability + Effort = Success
The belief in a meritocracy is extremely prevalent in workplaces and schools where the common narrative is that success is determined by individual achievement (instead of wealth, background, connections, or other privileges). Under a meritocracy, it is believed that social status and other rewards (e.g., money, good jobs, university admission) should be distributed to those who have the most skill and put in the most effort. In other words, the individual is to blame for their “failures” because they did not work hard enough or are not smart enough. There are two fundamental features of meritocracy: (1) equality of opportunity, and (2) impartial competition. However, in our current society, neither of those features exists.
Meritocracy is a myth.
People do not start on equal footing and are easily subject to biases. A meritocracy falsely disregards all inequities, barriers, and other systems of oppression in our society. For example, a meritocracy does not take into consideration how wealth can affect one’s education. Studies have found that class is a better predictor of academic achievement than intelligence and that working-class students are less likely to continue their education. A meritocracy also ignores how other identities (e.g., race, gender, language, sexuality, disability, citizenship, health) can produce additional challenges and barriers. Unfortunately, educational attainment is seen as the best way to improve one’s social status in a meritocracy.
In the case of my master’s degree, I started my program five years later than I had intended and it took four more years to complete (6 years in total!) than I had initially envisioned. I do not display my master's designations behind my name, not because I am not proud of the achievement, but because it is an incomplete story. My master’s journey was not delayed because of my lack of effort or intelligence. Instead, what the letters do not tell you, is how I struggled with being unhoused in my youth, therefore accumulated a mountain of debt, had to financially support a family member for years, was consistently working 18-hour days in my full-time job combined with my side-hustle, battled multiple illnesses, etc. The list goes on. However, I would be remiss to not mention that I also have several other certifications and designations that I was only able to attain because my employers at the time paid for them and let me complete them during work hours.
In a meritocracy, educational attainment is a signal to others that you are a smart and good person. For those that are unable to complete their education, they may blame themselves, causing them to doubt their self-worth and lose their confidence. When I first started my consulting career, I saw other colleagues with a series of designations behind their names and my immediate reaction was feelings of inadequacy and worries about how far behind I was. My comparison did not take into account our different circumstances.
We are justifying and reproducing inequities by believing that people can get further ahead in life simply by working harder and pursuing further education.
It is also important to note that educational attainment does not guarantee “success” for all. Biases can still impact highly educated individuals. For example, even when people have similar qualifications, other factors such as race, gender, and age can impact perceptions of competence and “fit” in the workplace. I remember another comment very vividly in my head:
“You can’t be a coach because you’re too young. No one will take you seriously!”
I was initially frustrated by my leader’s comment. I was already leading many strategic projects and I had the same education and work experience as most of my colleagues. The one big difference was that they were older than me. However, it was hard not to take the feedback to heart after a while when other leaders started making jokes about my age (“Did you bring your diaper and soother to work today?”). It became even more disheartening that even as I aged and gained even more education and work experience, I still faced doubt from others regarding my abilities based on how I looked.
Educational attainment is also not a reliable indicator of competency. Some of the best leaders that I have been fortunate enough to meet have not had any post-secondary education. I have heard from so many great leaders how embarrassed they are and fear other colleagues finding out that “they are not educated”. On the flip side, I have also met highly educated individuals (some with multiple PhDs) who were struggling in their roles.
Research has also shown that believing in a meritocracy can make people less self-aware, more prone to acting in discriminatory ways, and less likely to engage in social justice to change the system. Admittedly, my small act of not outwardly declaring my educational achievements is not going to fix the broken system. However, it is a conversation starter I often get to have with others.
Educational attainment is a privilege. The privilege to have the time, resources, energy, health, learning style, transportation, technology, support, opportunity, citizenship, etc. to be able to participate in continued education. I do not want people to look at my letters without knowing me and think to themselves, “She must be so smart and worked really hard to get those things!” Not to say that I am not intelligent and that I do not work hard. This is also not to say that I am not proud of my accomplishments or that others should not display them – especially in regulated industries where designations are required for the job. But what is missing from the narrative is how I actually got here – both the barriers and privileges.
As a result of the meritocracy myth, I also choose to not openly display my designations because I have spent many years in therapy learning how to value myself beyond just “accomplishments” and productivity. This is now an exercise of self-acceptance – that I am more than any set of letters behind my name. We all deserve opportunity and acceptance - no matter our “merits”!
Reflection Questions:
How has the myth of meritocracy impacted your beliefs, perceptions, and/or experiences?
What are some specific challenges/barriers/inequities that can affect one’s ability to continue and/or finish their education?
What are some other ways that individuals/leaders/organizations can combat the myth of meritocracy?
References
Alvarado, L. (2010). Dispelling the meritocracy myth: Lessons for higher education and student affrairs educators. The Vermont Connection, 31, 10-20.
Castilla, E, J., & Benard, S. (2010). The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(4), pp. 543-676.
Doerr, K., Riegle-Crumb, C., Russo-Tait, T., Takasaki, K., Sassler, S., & Levitte, Y. (2021). Making merit work at the entrance to the engineering workforce: Examining women’s experiences and variations by race/ethnicity. Sex Roles, 85, 422-439.
Generett, G., & Olson, A. (2020). The stories we tell: How merit narratives undermine success for urban youth. Urban Education, 55(3), 394-423.
Goldthorpe, J. (2003). The myth of education-based meritocracy: Why the theory isn’t working. New Economy, 234-239.
Hutchings, M., & Archer, L. (2001). ‘Higher than Einstein’: Constructions of going to university among working-class non-participants. Research papers in Education, 16(1), 69-91.
Jones, C., & Nangah, Z. (2021). Higher education students: Barriers to engagement; psychological alienation theory, trauma and trust: A systematic review. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 25(2), 62-71.
Jury, M., Smeding, A., Stephens, N. M., Nelson, J. E., Aelenei, C., & Darnon, C. (2017). The experience of low-SES students in higher education: Psychological barriers to success and interventions to reduce social-class inequality. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 23-41.
Kim, C. H., & Choi, Y. B. (2017). How meritocracy is defined today?: Contemporary aspects of meritocracy. Economics and Sociology, 10(1), pp. 112-121.
Lardier, D., Herr, K., Barrios, V., Garcia-Reid, P., & Reid, R. (2019). Merit in meritocracy: Uncovering the myth of exceptionality and self-reliance through the voices of urban youth of color. Education and Urban Society, 51(4), 474-500.
Liu, A. (2011). Unraveling the myth of meritocracy within the context of US higher education. Higher Education, 62, 383-397.
Lühe, J. (2014). In search of the glass ceiling: What mechanisms and barriers hinder qualified women from progressing in academia?. In Paths to Career and Success for Women in Science, 79-91.
McLean, S. (2018). “We built a life from nothing”: White settler colonialism and the myth of meritocracy. Our Schools/Our Selves, 32-33.
Reay, D. (2021). The working classes and higher education: Meritocratic fallacies of upward mobility in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Education, 56(1), 53-64.
Sifuentes, A. (2017). Blockades, barricades, and barriers: Accessing and navigating academia from a multi-marginalized positionality. Journal of Working-Class Studies, 2(2), 108-119.
Talib, N., & Fitzgerald, R. (2015). Inequality as meritocracy: The use of the metaphor of diversity and the value of inequality within Singapore’s meritocratic education system. Critical Discourse Studies, 12(4), 445-462.
“Trading Action for Access”: The Myth of Meritocracy and the Failure to Remedy Structural Discrimination. (2008). Harvard Law Review, 121(8), 2156–2177. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40042735.
Wilburn, V. & Smith, D. (2005). Stress, self-esteem, and suicidal ideation in late adolescents. Adolescence, 40(157), 33-45
Young, M. (1998). Meritocracy revisited. Society, 35(2), 377-379.
Young, M. (2006). Looking back on meritocracy. The Political Quarterly, 77(1), 73-77.