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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:RAND laid off researchers today

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Very sorry to hear.

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.

Anonymous wrote:RAND laid off researchers today

Anonymous wrote:FNLCR is not a studies and analysis ffrdc. And they are often held by larger organizations that have other business units.

Re conflict of interest - this is something that is carefully considered. The organizations that hold defense FFRDCs don’t take studies funds from defense contractors anywhere in their organizations for example My sponsors were always super careful to avoid sponsoring inappropriate work. And FFRDCs have “ceilings” or limits on the amount of funds they can bring in which also contributed to sponsor desires to make sure they weren’t wasting the opportunity by giving work that could be done elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:There is real RAND hater on this thread!

FFRDCs and for profit contractors have different business models. The latter can serve as body shops and staff government offices. They do a huge amount of valuable staff work.

FFRDCs are defined in the FAR: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/35.017
Government organizations are not legally allowed to give work to FFRDCs that are outside their mission. If a for-profit can do it, it should not go to an FFRDC. All the studies and analyses FFRDCs have serious PhD nerds who are happy doing studies. They are supposed to be independent and offer independent advice, but have the expertise and clearances necessary to do all kinds of work. These are long term investments made by the government in folks who can give good advice.

I love dcum. Where else could I write about the FAR and know people will track?