By ANIKA JUGOVIĆ SPAJIĆ

Meritocracy is often lauded as the core principle of education in the United States. This idea posits that by providing equal education opportunities, the person’s success will depend on their individual effort and “natural” abilities (Leighton 2020).

The myth of meritocracy ignores the fact that our society does not live up to its standards and does not offer a level playing field (Harel Ben-Shahar 2023). Systemic inequalities offer some students a head start while introducing or reinforcing barriers for others. The intersections of race, class, gender, religion, nationhood, citizenship and (dis)ability affect the opportunities for education and their outcomes. This system favors students from the upper class as the accumulation of financial, social and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1984, 1986) is key to students’ admission and success in institutions of education on all levels.

Meritocracy reproduces the U.S.-centered myth of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, which shifts the blame to individuals for their “failures.” We should rethink how this ideology affects the experiences of our students. The pressure to meet academic expectations while juggling debt, employment and care work, and navigating unjust environments can have negative consequences for our students’ physical, mental and emotional health.

To combat the myth of meritocracy, the Teaching Center offers the following pedagogical frameworks and strategies:

JEDI framework

A JEDI (Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion) approach is one where instructors recognize and learn from systemic inequities to formulate a more just approach to teaching. It means fostering an environment in which students from various backgrounds feel welcome and striving to create conditions which enable full participation of all students.

One JEDI strategy is removing barriers to physical and digital accessibility by utilizing resources offered by the University and educating ourselves about the latest accessibility developments. We also can remove financial barriers by making our class materials available at no cost, when possible. Designing a diverse syllabus by questioning the established disciplinary canons and including authors from marginalized communities is another important strategy.

We can start by asking if our own education has created implicit biases which affect our approach to curriculum creation. How can we make all our students feel welcome and comfortable to participate in the classroom? What steps can we take to invite students to contribute to the course? By educating ourselves and taking one step at a time in implementing JEDI strategies, we can help students benefit from the University experience.

Trauma-aware teaching

Trauma-aware teaching is an educational approach that facilitates understanding of how trauma impacts learning and classroom experiences. Trauma can stem from a singular event and from chronic, repeating events and systemic violence such as poverty, racism, sexism, transphobia and homophobia — the myth of meritocracy can exacerbate these issues.

Creating a safe and supportive classroom environment is one tenet of trauma-aware teaching. To create such an environment, you can:

Consider how you can cultivate an awareness of students’ backgrounds, whether that’s through beginning-of-the-term surveys, options for student reflection, or even full-class or small-group discussions. Being transparent, consistent, and making our expectations clear reinforces the feeling of safety as it minimizes the feelings of uncertainty and lack of trust.

Examine where there are opportunities for collaboration in your classroom, both between students and between students and yourself. An atmosphere of collaboration and mutuality is instrumental to trauma-aware approaches. The myth of meritocracy can work to diminish understanding of important differences between individuals, including negative experiences that impact one’s ability to learn and thrive. Maintaining an awareness of the presence of trauma in your classroom can help you make choices that allow students to meet learning objectives in a range of ways.

Alternative grading methods

Often, meritocracy carries with it an assumption that everyone “should” be able to learn and be assessed in identical ways and that students will inherently understand not only why they were assigned their grade, but also what to do with feedback.

Alternative grading strategies can open space for students to become part of the assessment process, which increases transparency and intrinsic motivation. Like many teaching strategies, alternative grading is not an “all or nothing” practice: You can integrate alternative grading for specific assignments to give students practice reflecting on and evaluating their own work.

Has there been an assignment where you wish students would take more risks? Alternative grading can promote generative risk-taking in students by offering assurance that they will not be penalized for reaching outside of their comfort zone.

Available resources

Resisting individualism by fostering communities and networks of care in the classroom is key for cultivating an equitable learning environment for students.

One often-overlooked matter is the issue of food insecurity. Indeed, 43% of Pitt students experience some form of food insecurity. For the academic nourishment of our minds to happen, our bodies need to be nourished.

We can ask ourselves: How can we incorporate the discussion on food insecurity in our classes? We can do that via the syllabus, in the introductory class, and, when appropriate, during office hours. Pointing students to available resources both on and off campus is one way to aid our students. Normalizing the discussion on food insecurity and how poverty intersects with race, gender and disability is another way to support our students while also lessening the stigma around food insecurity.

Upcoming online workshops

• Anti-Racist Pedagogy Workshop, noon-1:30 p.m. Sept. 24

• Trauma-Aware Teaching Strategies, 5-6:30 p.m. Nov. 19

Anika Jugović Spajić is a graduate student assistant for the Teaching Center’s Graduate Student Teaching Initiative.

REFERENCES

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, ed. J. G. Richardson. New York: Greenwood Press, Pp. 241–58.

Harel Ben Shahar, Tammy. 2023. Merit, Opportunity, and the Future of Higher Education. Handbook of Equality of Opportunity, 1–18.

Leighton, Mary. 2020. Myths of Meritocracy, Friendship, and Fun Work: Class and Gender in North American Academic Communities. American Anthropologist 122(3):444-458.