Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sound like management...which makes me wonder why you're still hanging out on a mommy forum while the whole place is imploding.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There is almost no connection between the pay bands and what people actually make. Very common for people to make below the band for their position of right at the bottom. The pay bands are based on market analysis, and MITRE can’t keep up with the market.

Huh? This is dead wrong. The pay bands are not based on market analysis. It's literally what people get paid. But you're right about one thing -- Mitre can't keep up with the market.

HR won't let you pay below the range or above the range. Additionally, when hiring, HR has 'preferences' where in the pay range the candidate starts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It’s probably 68% of all philanthropic contributions to RAND. The material weakness finding is bad. Both will surely be flagged by DCAA (I use to work there).

Material weakness isn't a big deal.

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.

There is almost no connection between the pay bands and what people actually make. Very common for people to make below the band for their position of right at the bottom. The pay bands are based on market analysis, and MITRE can’t keep up with the market.

Huh? This is dead wrong. The pay bands are not based on market analysis. It's literally what people get paid. But you're right about one thing -- Mitre can't keep up with the market.

HR won't let you pay below the range or above the range. Additionally, when hiring, HR has 'preferences' where in the pay range the candidate starts.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It’s probably 68% of all philanthropic contributions to RAND. The material weakness finding is bad. Both will surely be flagged by DCAA (I use to work there).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Broken link…

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%2F20260425%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20260425T205507Z&X-Amz-Expires=1800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=a550c1f7751a1b6e5708bcdc3fcdd980ea09519035f8a7ebd6cca183c6243ee4

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Broken link…

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.

There is almost no connection between the pay bands and what people actually make. Very common for people to make below the band for their position of right at the bottom. The pay bands are based on market analysis, and MITRE can’t keep up with the market.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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 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

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?