FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Senior researchers are a dime a dozen. It's much harder to find folks with technical skills who want to work at a non-profit instead of Google. I know RAND looks at comparable salaries when setting ranges.

How do you know? Is RAND HR monitoring this thread?

I used to work there as a researcher. Definitely not HR. FFRDCs to do comps pretty carefully when doing government work to justify salaries. What can researchers make in academia? What do other organizations pay? That said the comps are not Wall Street.

It was always harder to find folks for the tech support side, and hard to keep them. In Silicon Valley they're the stars and at FFRDCs they are make it possible for researchers to do their work.

I know folks at all the local FFRDCs. Mostly really smart and mission driven people. A lot of them could have made more money in other organizations.

Not sure I buy this point. The pay range for a "Technical AI Policy Associate" at RAND is listed at $47,100- $156,500, requiring a BA but preference for a higher degree. (https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC-DC-Metro-Area/Technical-AI-Policy-Associate_R3217-1)

RAND is paying a "Grants Proposal Manager" between $75,700-$112,400, requiring a high school diploma but a BA is preferred. (https://rand.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/en-US/External_Career_Site/job/Washington-DC/Grants-Proposal-Manager_R3234)

That difference is absurd. In what world does a grant proposal manager with a HS diploma get paid up to 50%+ LESS than a Technical AI policy researcher? This is the kind of thing DOGE should be digging into - it's waste and bloat hiding in plain sight!

*Correction: That difference is absurd. In what world does a grant proposal manager with a HS diploma get paid up to 50%+ MORE than a Technical AI policy researcher? This is the kind of thing DOGE should be digging into - it's waste and bloat hiding in plain sight!

The AI position isn't even government funded. And if they underpay, they won't get good people. Why would that be your business,.or DOGE's?

It’s my business because I’m a taxpayer and my employer (a defense contractor) has to compete with these bloated FFRDCs.

Ummm … contractors cannot do FFRDC work and Vice versa

You are incorrect.

CNA is one that has separated its Gov contracting work from its traditional FFRDC work.

I work at CNA and can confirm. That's what the Institute for Public Research does.

Yes, I hear things are getting a bit rougher on the gov contract side of things at CNA.

They are. Everyone is getting hit in different ways.

CNA just posted openings on LinkedIn for Flight Test Engineers at Edwards AFB. One might think this would require an AeroE degree, but actually any STEM degree qualifies...for example Biology.

I went looking for the job descriptions all prepared to join in the indigence, and … they want an AeroE or other technical degree, and skills/knowledge specific to flight testing. I’m not seeing the problem here.

[Anonymous]

CNA's careers portal says any STEM degree or an AeroE degree for those jobs - as of a moment ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CNA's careers portal says any STEM degree or an AeroE degree for those jobs - as of a moment ago.

“ … they want an AeroE or other technical degree, and skills/knowledge specific to flight testing.”

[Anonymous]

RIFs at IDA per CBS News.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-funded-think-tank-hegseth-slashes-weapons-testing-office/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA's careers portal says any STEM degree or an AeroE degree for those jobs - as of a moment ago.

“ … they want an AeroE or other technical degree, and skills/knowledge specific to flight testing.”

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RIFs at IDA per CBS News.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-funded-think-tank-hegseth-slashes-weapons-testing-office/

This is a real shame. IDA is s great organization and that team is fantastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RIFs at IDA per CBS News.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pentagon-funded-think-tank-hegseth-slashes-weapons-testing-office/

This is a real shame. IDA is s great organization and that team is fantastic.

The leaking of internal memos isn't a great look.

[Anonymous]

The article says the Pentagon will save $300M a year. It doesn’t estimate how much will be spent on systems that don’t work, that don’t interoperate, and that otherwise create risks for the warfighter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article says the Pentagon will save $300M a year. It doesn’t estimate how much will be spent on systems that don’t work, that don’t interoperate, and that otherwise create risks for the warfighter.

The Pentagon will also not sending $ to a quiet think tank that cannot keep quiet.

[Anonymous]

The TV personality knows best!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very sorry to hear.

Me too. I think RAND's current CEO is in way over his head. He has never managed a large organization before. I think the largest place he ever led was CSET... that place employs around 50 people and is the size of a single program in one of RAND's many FFRDCs.

Jason Matheny’s unrealistic grand plans for RAND led to very poor implementation. He hired friends from his Effective Altruism circles for his tech initiatives, resulting in garbage research. He closely tied RAND to the Biden administration during its implosion, causing Trump and his allies to view us as "Biden’s think tank." He ignored the FFRDCs, risking losing our contracts. Revenue is plummeting, with one RIF of researchers and more likely to come. The Board should confront this train wreck before it’s too late.[/]

As a longtime RAND employee, this is an accurate assessment.

[Anonymous]

FFRDCs including IDA are over staffed and they charge crazy amount. Work quality is mediocre and a lot of oldies who clock 9-5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FFRDCs including IDA are over staffed and they charge crazy amount. Work quality is mediocre and a lot of oldies who clock 9-5.

The STE cost at IDA and other SAC FFRDCs is not out of line with other contractor organizations for comparably skilled personnel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FFRDCs including IDA are over staffed and they charge crazy amount. Work quality is mediocre and a lot of oldies who clock 9-5.

The STE cost at IDA and other SAC FFRDCs is not out of line with other contractor organizations for comparably skilled personnel.

As a sponsor of IDA work I actually think their much less expensive than comparable FFRDCs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very sorry to hear.

Me too. I think RAND's current CEO is in way over his head. He has never managed a large organization before. I think the largest place he ever led was CSET... that place employs around 50 people and is the size of a single program in one of RAND's many FFRDCs.

He probably didn't think the world would fall apart when he took the job.

I'm guessing IDA will have to do the same, with the DOT&E drawdown.

Isn't it the CEO's job to actually lead during crisis?