I find this study a bit distasteful from the likes of MIT. As an affluent, largely upper-middle-class acceptance rate university, conducting obvious research like this using a public grant suggests a level of egocentrism that embarrasses me if not them....Donate the money to the many, many under-resourced communities that are just down the street, MIT. Or let a public university run the research using your expensive tools. Sacrifice a bit of that prestige for the empowerment of the individuals who lack your resources. MIT covers this preference for sustaining upper-class admissions in their research: https://mitsloan.mit.edu/press/new-mit-sloan-research-finds-organizations-still-prefer-legacy-applicants-because-they-benefit-bottom-line. I would like to see more of their understanding shown in their admissions and outreach.
When I was a kid in Kentucky, an eco-friendly piece of legislation shut down a bunch of mines. A buy-out wen t to the owners of the mines, and the miners, who depended on the central mining company for salary, healthcare, and in some cases housing, lost all that. This is, of course, after the miners had spent many years of their lives, often in dangerous conditions, creating the value that the companies possessed. Mining isn't a profession known for great health while you do it or in your later years, so one can imagine this change in the local economic environment - while for the better in some ways - did not involve needed improvements for the miners. After years of generating wealth largely for others via a profession that is far from easy, the miners were 'left behind.'
When MIT or another elite university with deep pockets and lots of resources and students who, on average, come from somewhat predictable and insular backgrounds, applies for and receives a grant for a study like this, I am always reminded of this time in my childhood. Nothing that happened was that surprising, and much of the damaging fallout for those involved was fairly easy to foresee. Yet so many failed to see it because they measured what they prioritized to the exclusion of other values and concerns.
The owners of the mines weren't bad people - many were friends with the miners. But the owners were 'well-educated' and understood and could calculate, in a widely accepted political and economic way, what they lost to the legislation. The owners ultimately lost their cash cow, so they understandably lobbied politicians who, in many cases, the owners knew from school or social activities. Many owners thus successfully walked away with a lot of money to start new ventures (not necessarily eco-friendly ventures.)
The miners were less present and thus less reactive at the policy level, and they tended to be less intimately familiar with the politicians and scientists behind the legislation. As I remember understanding it, the miners had less experience and fewer connections with those in positions of financial decision-making. That said, what the miners did know, none of those in so-called 'higher' positions knew. Mining is hard and requires a level of skill and know-how (some might say knowledge) that is hard to acquire if one does not practice the profession. And, at that time, this know how was responsible for a lot of profit, but profit that didn't necessarily make it into the pockets of the miners and their families.
The whole experience, to me, still feels like a very painful case of miscommunication and misunderstanding and a genuine lack of knowledge on the part of the people making impactful decisions at a so-called high level. In some cases, miners blamed politicians and environmental scientists for what they lost and, while I think the legislation had a good intent, I agree with those miners. There must be a better way.
This MIT study is not groundbreaking. I think it reminds us of 'The Cult of Smart' and the fact that individuals who traditionally have more access to resources tend to reproduce their environments and related values and hierarchies, many of which are as constructed as any other. We all stick to our algorithms, I guess.
I suspect, perhaps unfairly, that this knowledge and research, while useful, is not one that MIT itself applies on average. They know the problem, they have the data, and I'm sure they even inform policymakers and corporate leaders of their work. But, as for the miners, this won't change much until elite institutions like MIT learn to accommodate and equally value what is outside their ecosystem and to stop providing advice so much as taking it themselves.
Again, I don't think it's a problem of intent - intents are generally 'good.' I think it's a problem of myopic interest in an issue that ultimately you don't feel responsible for solving at a structural level - as a researcher, you're 'just' assessing and you're 'just' an academic. But by measuring the issue, one must wonder how complicit a powerful institution like MIT is in perpetuating it, not at the individual level, but at the structural level.
The private MIT benefits from our highly unequal socioeconomic and education system. It's pretty much at the top of the academic hierarchy. It might even have been able to carry out this study without external funding. But it didn't. Like the owners of the mine, MIT has the resources to ensure the money comes in rather than goes out even as it actively advocates for needed change tied to just that very issue.
