private university

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A wealthy private nonprofit research university with major science and technology value, concentrated corporation governance, selective access, and campus climate footprint. Massachusetts Institute of Technology remains weak because of person-dependent governance, ecological harm, and ideological disavowal, even where the product or service has practical value.

Why this matters: MIT calibrates high technical public value under elite nonprofit governance rather than democratic stakeholder control.

Letter grade D Extractive Medium confidence (AI) Rubric gcd-rubric-v1 Last reviewed May 6, 2026

Final Score 18* D - Extractive

DEXTRACTIVE18 pts

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

Base Material38

Bonus+0

Cap41Ownership <= 4 and Governance <= 4

After Cap38

Penalties-20

Private Government badge

Massachusetts Institute of Technology receives the Private Government badge because it combines large-scale private rule-setting over customers, workers, users, members, or counterparties with OpenLobby-documented lobbying of about $1.4M on public policy issues.

Evidence: [9]

!Not Verified

Represent this organization?

Request verification to have the evidence record checked against primary materials and organization-supplied documents. Verification does not buy a higher score; scores change only when review finds factual errors, omissions, or miscalibration.

Request verification

Evaluation Overview

D - Extractive

The score turns mainly on Extraction, with the largest penalty coming from Reversibility.

Strengths

Extraction5/10
Labor Sovereignty5/7
Loss-Bearing Fidelity5/7

Penalties

Reversibility-5
Policy Capture-5
Animal Testing-5
Ecological Harm-3

Evidence state

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)
ThoroughnessPartial (AI)
Linked claims9
Direct axis claims8
Coverage8/14

Scoring Axes

Axis	Score	Why this score
Ownership ? Control rights: shareholder-dominated at 0, worker cooperative control at 10.	3 / 10	MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That keeps Massachusetts Institute of Technology low on Ownership: decisive control remains with shareholders, private owners, executives, or state insiders rather than affected people. The value is above zero only where the linked record still shows some real function, constraint, or public value on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 100 scored entries below, 9 tied, 117 above on Ownership. Linked evidence MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1]
Governance ? Binding decision authority: centralized control at 0, democratic stakeholder control at 10.	4 / 10	MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That places Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the middle of Governance: there are accountability mechanisms, but they stop short of broad democratic control. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 108 scored entries below, 18 tied, 100 above on Governance. Linked evidence context MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1] context MIT provides teaching, research, open courseware, and science and technology knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2] context MIT financial materials show large institutional resources and selective capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]
Extraction ? Surplus allocation, wage share, CEO pay ratio, margins, and structured extraction judgment.	5 / 10	MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That places Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the middle of Extraction: the institution creates real value but still leaves room for rent extraction, unequal bargaining, or surplus capture. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 95 scored entries below, 19 tied, 112 above on Extraction. Linked evidence context MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1] context MIT provides teaching, research, open courseware, and science and technology knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2] context MIT financial materials show large institutional resources and selective capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]
Labor Sovereignty ? Worker power: coercive conditions at 0, co-determination or ownership at 7. Employee dissatisfaction matters only when source-backed evidence shows concrete limits on worker agency, such as coercive scheduling, retaliation, wage theft, harassment, unsafe conditions, suppression of worker voice, or extreme turnover.	5 / 7	MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That places Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the middle of Labor Sovereignty: workers or participants have some protection or agency, but not enough binding power to control the relationship. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 152 scored entries below, 40 tied, 34 above on Labor Sovereignty. Linked evidence context MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1] context MIT provides teaching, research, open courseware, and science and technology knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2] context MIT financial materials show large institutional resources and selective capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]
Solidarity with the Unemployed ? Treatment of exits and nonworkers, including severance, redeployment, and non-competes.	4 / 7	MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That places Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the middle of Solidarity with the Unemployed: some access, severance, retraining, openness, or mutual-aid value is present, but it is not central or durable. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 127 scored entries below, 30 tied, 69 above on Solidarity with the Unemployed. Linked evidence context MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1] context MIT provides teaching, research, open courseware, and science and technology knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2] context MIT financial materials show large institutional resources and selective capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]
Loss-Bearing Fidelity ? Willingness to absorb costs to preserve values, workers, users, and public obligations.	5 / 7	MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That places Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the middle of Loss-Bearing Fidelity: there is some willingness to preserve obligations, but the record still leaves meaningful risk-shifting concerns. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 119 scored entries below, 43 tied, 64 above on Loss-Bearing Fidelity. Linked evidence context MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1] context MIT provides teaching, research, open courseware, and science and technology knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2] context MIT financial materials show large institutional resources and selective capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]
Market Conduct ? Pricing fairness, switching costs, lock-in, and rent extraction.	3 / 5	MIT financial materials show large institutional resources and selective capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. MIT financial materials show large institutional resources and selective capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. That places Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the middle of Market Conduct: the product has real value but still uses meaningful lock-in, gatekeeping, market power, or dependency. The value stays below the top tier because the linked record does not show full democratic control, non-extractive lock-in, or complete stakeholder protection on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 54 scored entries below, 51 tied, 121 above on Market Conduct. Linked evidence MIT financial materials show large institutional resources and selective capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]
Product Integrity ? Preservation of quality rather than degradation for monetization.	5 / 5	MIT provides teaching, research, open courseware, and science and technology knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. MIT provides teaching, research, open courseware, and science and technology knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. That places Massachusetts Institute of Technology high on Product Integrity: the core offering is genuinely useful and comparatively less dependent on traps, degradation, or harmful dependencies. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 134 scored entries below, 92 tied, 0 above on Product Integrity. Linked evidence MIT provides teaching, research, open courseware, and science and technology knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2]
Scale Integrity ? Whether growth improves or degrades fairness and accountability.	4 / 5	MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. That places Massachusetts Institute of Technology high on Scale Integrity: growth appears compatible with accountability, quality, and stakeholder benefit. A still-higher or maximum value requires stronger proof that this structure is durable, broad, and not merely discretionary. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 109 scored entries below, 81 tied, 36 above on Scale Integrity. Linked evidence context MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership. [1] context MIT provides teaching, research, open courseware, and science and technology knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources. [2] context MIT financial materials show large institutional resources and selective capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct. [3]

Penalties

Penalty	Applied	Why this penalty
Reversibility ? Applied when positive conduct depends on current living leaders, founders, family owners, or other person-contingent governance rather than durable structure. Range: -5 to 0.	-5	MIT positive conduct depends on corporation governance, administrative policy, donor/endowment choices, admissions policy, and academic culture rather than durable democratic control by students, workers, or affected communities. MIT positive conduct depends on corporation governance, administrative policy, donor/endowment choices, admissions policy, and academic culture rather than durable democratic control by students, workers, or affected communities. That warrants a severe Reversibility penalty because favorable conduct depends on current people or discretionary leadership rather than locked stakeholder structure. The value is near the floor because the conduct appears central, large-scale, repeated, or institutionally powerful rather than incidental. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 0 scored entries below, 95 tied, 131 above on Reversibility. Linked evidence MIT positive conduct depends on corporation governance, administrative policy, donor/endowment choices, admissions policy, and academic culture rather than durable democratic control by students, workers, or affected communities. [4]
Ecological Harm ? Footprint, trajectory, irreversibility, culpability, and scale, including whether ecological harm is central to the model and continued after credible notice. Range: -30 to 0.	-3	MIT climate materials identify campus emissions and decarbonization as material institutional responsibilities. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Column-spectrum position: 43 scored entries below, 9 tied, 174 above on Ecological Harm. Linked evidence MIT climate materials identify campus emissions and decarbonization as material institutional responsibilities. [5]
Policy Capture ? Private-interest attempts to bend law, regulation, subsidies, taxes, enforcement, trade, labor, safety, competition, environmental, healthcare, housing, surveillance, civil-liberties, or consumer policy against workers, customers, citizens, affected communities, or ecological life. Public-interest advocacy is not penalized merely because it is lobbying. Range: -15 to 0.	-5	OpenLobby records MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY lobbying on healthcare, manufacturing, immigration, energy, law enforcement, education, and other issues with about $1.4M in spending… OpenLobby records MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY lobbying on healthcare, manufacturing, immigration, energy, law enforcement, education, and other issues with about $1.4M in spending across 37 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy. That warrants a limited Policy Capture penalty because private institutional pressure is being applied to public rules while affected people cannot democratically govern that agenda. The value is limited because the linked record shows a real problem but not one that dominates the profile on this axis. Linked evidence OpenLobby records MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY lobbying on healthcare, manufacturing, immigration, energy, law enforcement, education, and other issues with about $1.4M in spending across 37 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role. [7]
Animal Testing ? Direct animal testing, contract animal testing, animal-testing-dependent product development, or business lines where current safety/regulatory approval normally relies on animal experiments. Stronger penalties apply where animal testing is core, repeated, non-optional, or avoidable; documented cruelty-free or non-animal methods reduce or eliminate the penalty. Range: -8 to 0.	-5	Large research universities and biomedical institutions commonly operate under animal-research oversight systems; this warrants a material penalty where the profile has not yet separated non-animal work from animal-testing-dependent research. Large research universities and biomedical institutions commonly operate under animal-research oversight systems; this warrants a material penalty where the profile has not yet separated non-animal work from animal-testing-dependent research. The value stays below the floor because the current record shows material exposure without the strongest evidence of sector-defining or worst-actor conduct. Linked evidence Massachusetts Institute of Technology has biomedical research institution animal-testing exposure based on its listed business model and current profile description: A wealthy private nonprofit research university with major science and technology value, concentrated corporation governance, selective access, and campus climate footprint. Massachusetts Institute of Technology remains… [8]
Ideological Disavowal ? Concealed ideology presented as neutrality, expertise, professional necessity, public-service administration, market inevitability, or non-ideological common sense while exercising power. Range: -3 to 0.	-2	Massachusetts Institute of Technology's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Massachusetts Institute of Technology exercises meaningful institutional or… Massachusetts Institute of Technology's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Massachusetts Institute of Technology exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity. That warrants a substantial Ideological Disavowal penalty because the institution presents situated, contested choices as neutrality, expertise, inevitability, safety, or common sense. The value is substantial but not at the floor because the linked record shows serious conduct without the strongest aggravating factors on this axis. Calibration notes Comparative anchor: Ideological Disavowal 0 to -3 recalibration: 0 for explicit standpoint or no penalty-level neutrality theater; -1 for bounded softening of contested choices; -2 for strong neutrality theater by a powerful institution; -3 for major gatekeeping or coercive power presented as neutral, necessary, objective, or non-ideological. Uncertainty This recalibration uses public self-presentation and profile evidence; later review should add direct language-analysis evidence for high-impact institutions. Linked evidence Massachusetts Institute of Technology's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Massachusetts Institute of Technology exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service. [6]

Bonus Credits

No bonus credits applied in this version.

Confidence Basis

Confidence is computed from the evidence trail and review state, not typed into the profile by hand.

Medium 75/100

8 verified linked claims 8 direct axis claims 0 disputed claims 8/14 components covered

This confidence label measures the source-backed evidence trail. AI-scaffolded scores remain tentative until human review.

Claim confidence 16/20

8 verified linked claims

Source quality 16/18

Best source per verified claim, weighted by institutional reliability

Direct axis-specific claims 9/18

8 direct claims across 14 active components

Dispute load 12/12

0 disputed claims on this entity

Recency 10/10

Newest accepted timestamp: May 13, 2026

Reviewer status 7/12

Human-reviewed components score higher than AI scaffolding

Component coverage 6/10

8/14 evidence-bearing components have direct support

Evidence State

Profile stateAI draft / human-pending

VerificationUnverified

ConfidenceMedium confidence (AI)

ThoroughnessPartial (AI)

Correction routeUse “Challenge this rating” for factual errors, missing counterevidence, source problems, or calculation mistakes.

Company responseCompany representatives can submit source-backed corrections; payment never changes scores or reviewer authority.

Claims and Sources

Claims are the evidence record. Each claim needs a source link, axis category, status, confidence level, and timestamp before it can support a score.

* Tentative scaffolding score. Not human-checked or final.

1MIT is a private nonprofit university governed through the MIT Corporation rather than worker, student, or public democratic ownership.

Ownership Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

MIT CorporationPrimary institutional record · 90%

2MIT provides teaching, research, open courseware, and science and technology knowledge functions with unusually large institutional resources.

Product Integrity Verified High confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

MIT factsPrimary institutional record · 90%

3MIT financial materials show large institutional resources and selective capacity, describes conduct considered under Market Conduct.

Market Conduct Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

MIT reports to the presidentPrimary institutional record · 90%

4MIT positive conduct depends on corporation governance, administrative policy, donor/endowment choices, admissions policy, and academic culture rather than durable democratic control by students, workers, or affected communities.

Reversibility Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

MIT CorporationPrimary institutional record · 90%

5MIT climate materials identify campus emissions and decarbonization as material institutional responsibilities.

Ecological Harm Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 6, 2026

AI scaffold

MIT climate actionPrimary institutional record · 90%

6Massachusetts Institute of Technology's public framing is assessed as ideological-disavowal evidence because Massachusetts Institute of Technology exercises meaningful institutional or cultural power while strongly presenting contested choices as neutral expertise, safety, objectivity, professionalism, administrative necessity, or public service.

Ideological Disavowal Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 9, 2026

AI scaffold

Massachusetts Institute of Technology official sitePrimary institutional record · 90%
MIT CorporationPrimary institutional record · 90%
MIT factsPrimary institutional record · 90%

7OpenLobby records MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY lobbying on healthcare, manufacturing, immigration, energy, law enforcement, education, and other issues with about $1.4M in spending across 37 filings; the reviewed filings document private institutional lobbying over public rules rather than a public-interest advocacy role.

Policy Capture Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 11, 2026

AI scaffold

OpenLobby — MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

8Massachusetts Institute of Technology has biomedical research institution animal-testing exposure based on its listed business model and current profile description: A wealthy private nonprofit research university with major science and technology value, concentrated corporation governance, selective access, and campus climate footprint. Massachusetts Institute of Technology remains…

Animal Testing Verified High confidence Human-reviewed May 11, 2026

Massachusetts Institute of Technology public sitePrimary institutional record · 90%
FDA: Animal Welfare, Testing and Research of FDA-Regulated ProductsPrimary public record · 100%

9Massachusetts Institute of Technology receives the Private Government badge because it combines large-scale private rule-setting over customers, workers, users, members, or counterparties with OpenLobby-documented lobbying of about $1.4M on public policy issues.

Private Government Verified Medium confidence AI-generated / human-pending May 11, 2026

AI scaffold

OpenLobby — MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY lobbying profileGeneral web source · 58%

Alternatives

Competitors

AGOOD54 Berea College private nonprofit work college · same market AGOOD52 Maricopa Community Colleges public community-college system · same market AGOOD51 Miami Dade College public college · same market AGOOD51 Seattle Colleges public community-college district · same market AGOOD50 Bellevue College public college · same market BQUALIFIED49 Dallas College public community-college system · same market BQUALIFIED46 Western Governors University nonprofit online university · same market CPERFORMATIVE36 State University of New York public university system · same market

Help Improve This Profile

Submit source-backed evidence or challenge a specific claim, source, axis value, or calculation below.

How This Page Is Maintained

Evidence comes in through contributors, is checked by verifiers, and is synthesized by reviewers. Founder authority remains narrow and visible; scores recalculate when verified claims or the rubric change.

Civic Note

Incorporation, limited liability, market access, and other institutional privileges are public grants. Good Companies Directory treats those privileges as conditional on accountability to workers, users, communities, and the public.

Submit evidence for Massachusetts Institute of Technology Add one source-backed fact for review.

Challenge this rating Point to a specific score, claim, source, or calculation problem.

Audit Log

Recent public changes for this company or group. The full audit log is part of the Transparency record.

May 6, 2026 at 12:00 AM UTC ai-scaffolding

View Full Audit Log