FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In most cases, and clearly understanding some exceptions exist, getting above level 5 at MITRE says more about one's skills at office politics than it says about one's scientific or engineering skills.

I fully agree, but to play devils advocate -- at the higher levels you need to worry more about alignment, is the right work being done, how to bring in new work, etc. which rely more on soft skills/politics than on hard engineering skills.

And how do you know these things if you are not technical and can't understand the language of your sponsors or engineers? On the public sector side there is a long history of nontechnical DMs, TDs, and even VPs and, well, here we are.

Many, not all, or the sponsors I've worked with weren't super technical. They knew they had a problem, or there's a better way, and came to us to solve that. If the L6/L7 is dealing with low level engineering problems, they shouldn't be an L6/L7.

There's a difference from having technical depth and understanding potential solutions to having "engineering skills".

I was on the public sector side too.

How much L6/L7 makes at RAND or MITRE?

At Mitre, L6 for most job roles is > $300k plus substantial bonuses...

Many L6's max out below 300k. Average is well below that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In most cases, and clearly understanding some exceptions exist, getting above level 5 at MITRE says more about one's skills at office politics than it says about one's scientific or engineering skills.

I fully agree, but to play devils advocate -- at the higher levels you need to worry more about alignment, is the right work being done, how to bring in new work, etc. which rely more on soft skills/politics than on hard engineering skills.

And how do you know these things if you are not technical and can't understand the language of your sponsors or engineers? On the public sector side there is a long history of nontechnical DMs, TDs, and even VPs and, well, here we are.

Many, not all, or the sponsors I've worked with weren't super technical. They knew they had a problem, or there's a better way, and came to us to solve that. If the L6/L7 is dealing with low level engineering problems, they shouldn't be an L6/L7.

There's a difference from having technical depth and understanding potential solutions to having "engineering skills".

I was on the public sector side too.

How much L6/L7 makes at RAND or MITRE?

At Mitre, L6 for most job roles is > $300k plus substantial bonuses...

This is kind of incorrect. Mitre doesn't even do bonuses, in the normal christmas way. They do a lower salary adjustment (2-3%) and a cash bonus of another 2-7%, depending on how the company did.

.

Raises dependent on relationship to boss. If you are on overhead, no tangible impac, you can still get nice raises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In most cases, and clearly understanding some exceptions exist, getting above level 5 at MITRE says more about one's skills at office politics than it says about one's scientific or engineering skills.

I fully agree, but to play devils advocate -- at the higher levels you need to worry more about alignment, is the right work being done, how to bring in new work, etc. which rely more on soft skills/politics than on hard engineering skills.

And how do you know these things if you are not technical and can't understand the language of your sponsors or engineers? On the public sector side there is a long history of nontechnical DMs, TDs, and even VPs and, well, here we are.

Many, not all, or the sponsors I've worked with weren't super technical. They knew they had a problem, or there's a better way, and came to us to solve that. If the L6/L7 is dealing with low level engineering problems, they shouldn't be an L6/L7.

There's a difference from having technical depth and understanding potential solutions to having "engineering skills".

I was on the public sector side too.

How much L6/L7 makes at RAND or MITRE?

Mitre has about 30 different engineering families. Midpoint of L6/L7 is roughly 225-275k, but the max of an L7 is over 330k.

I’ve only seen L7s over 300k. Haven’t seen a 6 remotely close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In most cases, and clearly understanding some exceptions exist, getting above level 5 at MITRE says more about one's skills at office politics than it says about one's scientific or engineering skills.

I fully agree, but to play devils advocate -- at the higher levels you need to worry more about alignment, is the right work being done, how to bring in new work, etc. which rely more on soft skills/politics than on hard engineering skills.

And how do you know these things if you are not technical and can't understand the language of your sponsors or engineers? On the public sector side there is a long history of nontechnical DMs, TDs, and even VPs and, well, here we are.

Many, not all, or the sponsors I've worked with weren't super technical. They knew they had a problem, or there's a better way, and came to us to solve that. If the L6/L7 is dealing with low level engineering problems, they shouldn't be an L6/L7.

There's a difference from having technical depth and understanding potential solutions to having "engineering skills".

I was on the public sector side too.

How much L6/L7 makes at RAND or MITRE?

Mitre has about 30 different engineering families. Midpoint of L6/L7 is roughly 225-275k, but the max of an L7 is over 330k.

I’ve only seen L7s over 300k. Haven’t seen a 6 remotely close.

Go look again at the (published internally) pay charts. Many job categories - not all job categories - are in that range.

[Anonymous]

I can confirm RAND is currently in terrible shape and is circling the drain, albeit as slowly as RAND does everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can confirm RAND is currently in terrible shape and is circling the drain, albeit as slowly as RAND does everything.

You're suggesting that installing a CEO who's only ever run a little mid-tier think tank like CSET, alongside a #2 who's never even run an FFRDC before, would send the whole place straight into the ground?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can confirm RAND is currently in terrible shape and is circling the drain, albeit as slowly as RAND does everything.

You're suggesting that installing a CEO who's only ever run a little mid-tier think tank like CSET, alongside a #2 who's never even run an FFRDC before, would send the whole place straight into the ground?

lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In most cases, and clearly understanding some exceptions exist, getting above level 5 at MITRE says more about one's skills at office politics than it says about one's scientific or engineering skills.

I fully agree, but to play devils advocate -- at the higher levels you need to worry more about alignment, is the right work being done, how to bring in new work, etc. which rely more on soft skills/politics than on hard engineering skills.

And how do you know these things if you are not technical and can't understand the language of your sponsors or engineers? On the public sector side there is a long history of nontechnical DMs, TDs, and even VPs and, well, here we are.

Many, not all, or the sponsors I've worked with weren't super technical. They knew they had a problem, or there's a better way, and came to us to solve that. If the L6/L7 is dealing with low level engineering problems, they shouldn't be an L6/L7.

There's a difference from having technical depth and understanding potential solutions to having "engineering skills".

I was on the public sector side too.

How much L6/L7 makes at RAND or MITRE?

Mitre has about 30 different engineering families. Midpoint of L6/L7 is roughly 225-275k, but the max of an L7 is over 330k.

I’ve only seen L7s over 300k. Haven’t seen a 6 remotely close.

Go look again at the (published internally) pay charts. Many job categories - not all job categories - are in that range.

Whatever the pay range, these are exceptionally qualified, indispensable are very rare individuals who are true leaders, visionaries and forward-thinkers. A blessing to any organization

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In most cases, and clearly understanding some exceptions exist, getting above level 5 at MITRE says more about one's skills at office politics than it says about one's scientific or engineering skills.

I fully agree, but to play devils advocate -- at the higher levels you need to worry more about alignment, is the right work being done, how to bring in new work, etc. which rely more on soft skills/politics than on hard engineering skills.

And how do you know these things if you are not technical and can't understand the language of your sponsors or engineers? On the public sector side there is a long history of nontechnical DMs, TDs, and even VPs and, well, here we are.

Many, not all, or the sponsors I've worked with weren't super technical. They knew they had a problem, or there's a better way, and came to us to solve that. If the L6/L7 is dealing with low level engineering problems, they shouldn't be an L6/L7.

There's a difference from having technical depth and understanding potential solutions to having "engineering skills".

I was on the public sector side too.

How much L6/L7 makes at RAND or MITRE?

Mitre has about 30 different engineering families. Midpoint of L6/L7 is roughly 225-275k, but the max of an L7 is over 330k.

I’ve only seen L7s over 300k. Haven’t seen a 6 remotely close.

Go look again at the (published internally) pay charts. Many job categories - not all job categories - are in that range.

Whatever the pay range, these are exceptionally qualified, indispensable are very rare individuals who are true leaders, visionaries and forward-thinkers. A blessing to any organization

We still talking about Mitre here?

[Anonymous]

Looks like RAND burned $120k from Jan to March on lobbying.... https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/c591beec-65ee-4d7f-8fc9-520661cf6b88/print/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In most cases, and clearly understanding some exceptions exist, getting above level 5 at MITRE says more about one's skills at office politics than it says about one's scientific or engineering skills.

I fully agree, but to play devils advocate -- at the higher levels you need to worry more about alignment, is the right work being done, how to bring in new work, etc. which rely more on soft skills/politics than on hard engineering skills.

And how do you know these things if you are not technical and can't understand the language of your sponsors or engineers? On the public sector side there is a long history of nontechnical DMs, TDs, and even VPs and, well, here we are.

Many, not all, or the sponsors I've worked with weren't super technical. They knew they had a problem, or there's a better way, and came to us to solve that. If the L6/L7 is dealing with low level engineering problems, they shouldn't be an L6/L7.

There's a difference from having technical depth and understanding potential solutions to having "engineering skills".

I was on the public sector side too.

How much L6/L7 makes at RAND or MITRE?

Mitre has about 30 different engineering families. Midpoint of L6/L7 is roughly 225-275k, but the max of an L7 is over 330k.

I’ve only seen L7s over 300k. Haven’t seen a 6 remotely close.

Go look again at the (published internally) pay charts. Many job categories - not all job categories - are in that range.

Whatever the pay range, these are exceptionally qualified, indispensable are very rare individuals who are true leaders, visionaries and forward-thinkers. A blessing to any organization

We still talking about Mitre here?

Must be joking

[Anonymous]

rand auditors appear to have found ‘material weakness in internal controls’ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/951958142

[Anonymous]

Mitre audit

https://pp-990-audits.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/2025-12-GSAFAC-0000414971.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA266MJEJYTM5WAG5Y%2F20260424%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20260424T055239Z&X-Amz-Expires=1800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=64e56bdef34f269518c162c25d78bbc2c4bec4a9ff52d1c1056122f831660bde

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:rand auditors appear to have found ‘material weakness in internal controls’ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/951958142

Page 13 sats "As of September 30, 2025, one donor makes up approximately 68% of gross contributions receivable." 1 donor props up 68% of contributions to RAND? Wow, who's that donor with so much influence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:rand auditors appear to have found ‘material weakness in internal controls’ https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/951958142

Page 13 sats "As of September 30, 2025, one donor makes up approximately 68% of gross contributions receivable." 1 donor props up 68% of contributions to RAND? Wow, who's that donor with so much influence?

With those research skills, I can't imagine why you haven't found another job yet.