Why Are the Best and Brightest Not Flooding DARPA?

David W. White writes "Wired mag's Danger Room carried an article today that highlighted how desperate the US Military's DARPA has become in its attempts to bring in additional brain power. The tactics include filmed testimonials, folders and even playing cards all screaming join DARPA! Where are all the Einsteins who want to be on the cutting edge for the Government?"

Well...

[Aussenseiter (1241842)]

I assume they're worried that they'll be the tragic victims of mysterious heart attacks.

Umm...

[by Anonymous Coward]

intelligent and well educated people don't want to work for an organization that supports torture and oppression?

Even ignoring the hyperbole, maybe they don't want to work for a group who's expressed purpose is to kill people.

More money to be made elsewhere?

[Dachannien (617929)]

Yes, it's a government job, and the government gives pretty good benefits, but why work as a civil servant when you could get a higher-paying job in private industry doing work under contract for DARPA?

Re:More money to be made elsewhere?

[TubeSteak (669689)]

but why work as a civil servant when you could get a higher-paying job in private industry doing work under contract for DARPA?

From lowest salary to highest
military --> civil servant --> private sector --> consultant

As for why you'd work as a civil servant... it's really hard to get fired?

Is this really a mystery?

[WindowlessView (703773)]

Where are all the Einsteins who want to be on the cutting edge for the Government?

We have a government that for 8 years has tried to outsource as many of its functions as possible to private firms that pay much better than the government itself. Geez, let me guess where smart people are hiding...

Because...

[by Anonymous Coward]

... "all the Einsteins" would do things like implement proper backing up of e-mails at the Whitehouse. Need I say more?

Likely Reasons

[weston (16146)]

1) It's getting harder to believe we're the good guys.

2) The increasing view of government agencies as mismanaged and incapable (and the fact that we somewhat consistently elect candidates that loudly proclaim this outcome as immutable and inevitable), and public sector/military work as a refuge for the bureaucratic and dull.

3) Business politics are marginally easier to put up with than ideological politics and graft.

4) The private sector pays as well or better, and you probably don't have to relocate.

4a) Fewer of the best and brightest don't choose technology/research, because it's quite clear our society values lawyers and management more.

Re:Likely Reasons

[linzeal (197905)]

I am just an engineer and I would never work for a government that destroys another country just to rebuild it. They need to bring back assassinations and stop killing civilians to change forms of government.

Hey, who wouldn't want a government job?

[l0ungeb0y (442022)]

Who wouldn't be tripping over themselves trying to get a job with low pay, be saddled bureaucracy, receive no public recognition, have to pass periodic drug, credit and background checks for security clearance, get crappy benefits and with no stock options.

Sounds like a dream job.

Obligatory Simpsons

[computerman413 (1122419)]

How about a music video with lyrics such as "APRAD nioj"?

Because DARPA doesn't do research

[Geoffrey.landis (926948)]

Where are all the Einsteins who want to be on the cutting edge for the Government?"

Well, of course, DARPA doesn't do research. DARPA manages contracts with other organizations that do research.

The Einsteins most likely want to be in the organizations that actually do the research.

Government Bureaucracy

[SpaFF (18764)]

As someone who works as a government contractor, my guess is it is because government bureaucracy stifles innovation. Most smart minds would rather work in academia where they get more freedoms, less restrictions, and are more easily able to surround themselves with likeminded individuals.

Bad Karma

[mbrod (19122)]

Many scientists have wised up to the fact their fun invention today maybe burning the skin off some poor kid tomorrow.

While they didn't do the actual killing, they do have other options available to them.

Because management is boring

[Dr.Pete (1021137)]

As far as I can tell, from the article, it's DARPA lacking program managers that is the issue. A DARPA program manager allocates money, directs research within a program and decides if a particular group in the program is performing up to scratch. Sure, you have to be pretty well up on the state of the art in a fairly broad range of areas to succeed in doing this but, at the end of the day, you aren't actually doing any research. Working for DARPA is the scientific equivalent of middle management. Who gets into research to do that? This impression is gathered from the giant sample set of one DARPA program manager I've have the pleasure of working with, so I may have a skewed view on the whole operation.

ask slashdot for a clue

[nuzak (959558)]

Here's a free one: DARPA gives grants. Unless you want to be a grant administrator, chances are you don't really want to work for DARPA.

A little, um, research into DARPA would have uncovered that insight.

bureaucracy is killing us

[rlwhite (219604)]

No one with real expertise wants to be stuck in a bureaucratic agency, shuffling the papers and attending meetings at least 6 hours a day. I've been a low-level engineer in one of the military's RDT&E agencies (not DARPA), and everyone there who has ever had any technical skill complains of skill atrophy, boredom, and endless unproductive bureaucracy. I was very lucky to get out while I could. One of the high-level managers there had been known to say that their strategy was to bring in the best and brightest technical minds they could and keep them 3-4 years until their skills had atrophied to the point that no one else would hire them.

If the government wants to succeed here, they absolutely have to throw out all the rulebooks and start over. I've been in project groups that tried to do true engineering work within the government, and it was a resource management nightmare. It would take months to order most anything. Everytime I tried to do something, I always needed something I didn't have and couldn't get for a long time. What we have now is simply an exercise in getting people paychecks. This is the real government welfare system.

I'll tell you why

[giminy (94188)]

I spent two years of my life post-graduate school working at DoD research laboratories, and can say with some experience why Geeks should not join DARPA (or any government research lab). It can be summed up in one word: "research."

Government labs no longer do the stuff for the most part. There are still some pockets left, but they are few and far between, and shrinking. I graduated with a MS in computer science, with a two-year focus on computer security. I was offered a job in a research team with with a DoD lab and eagerly took it. But it wasn't research. It was contract management. Essentially, I got to read research proposals from companies, and decide whether or not those companies would be funded for their ideas. My ability to influence the actual research of the companies was quite limited. I was able to come up with 'calls for proposals,' that is, statements of new topics that we'd like proposals on from companies. By the time these ideas were raped^Wvetted by the various program and contract managers, the descriptions were so incredibly vague that the proposals received in response to the call were completely off-topic. I got frustrated very early on and left.

In my exit interview, I asked my supervisor to define research. His definition was adequate. I then asked him if that's what we did. He stammered a bit, and ultimately conceded that we, "facilitated research." We had a very interesting discussion. Due to research project overruns throughout the 80s, particularly with software projects, as well as the end of the Cold War, the Congress changed the focus of DoD research programs. New funding rules dictate that research projects are placed under contract. In this way, if a company is paid to do research and development on a project, and it fails to deliver, the government has some recourse. If actual government employees received funding and failed, there would not be much that congress could do to them (Congress could slash the non-salary portions of the failed project's budget, but that's not very intimidating to the employees when you think about it).

The place where the 'cool' stuff happens these days is by the contractors. If you want to work on ARPA and DARPA quality work, start a small business and start winning on SBIR awards. I wouldn't recommend actually working for DARPA or a government research lab, though, unless you really want to be a contract manager and not be very hands-on with technology and ideas.

Two words:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Security Clearance.

We're rejecting and canning people because of even the most minor and often ancient of unrelated and innocuous financial transgressions and social relations -- even for the most insignificant of positions in government, contractors and even subcontractors thereof.

It's asinine. There are senators and congressmen with worse records and credit than contractors denied clearance to mop their floors.

The process is so intrusive and debasing that many people take one look at the paperwork and simply walk away.

Re:Umm... because they want to work tomorrow, too?

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

It's DARPA. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. They do research. They don't do spying. The spooks all work for CIA, DIA (that's Defense Intelligence Agency), and NSA. And probably a few organizations we don't know about. But DARPA just ain't one of them.

Re:Umm, because ....

[by Anonymous Coward]

We are all getting paid much better in the private sector.

Re:Umm, because ....

[caffeinemessiah (918089)]

maybe smart geeks are, well, not stupid, and don't want to get sent of to die in some other country?

Playing along with the "other country" theme, if you step into a graduate engineering department, you're likely to find a majority of non U.S. citizens comprising the graduate student workforce. These people are also ineligible for most U.S. Govt. fellowships and jobs that require a decent level of security clearance. Thus, DARPA might be having a tough time recruiting top-notch talent because most of the talent is ineligible to work for DARPA.

Re:Umm, because ....

[Schnoogs (1087081)]

Yeah because DARPA is a part of the infrantry.

Re:Perhaps they have a conscience?

[McGiraf (196030)]

"While I've known many brilliant people involved in making stuff for the military, most intelligent people also seem to be anti-military. I'm not saying that people are stupid to be pro-military, just that there seems to be some correlation." The correlation is this: You are anti-miltary. You think you are intelligent. (Everybody does) You think that people that agree with you are also intelligent. (Everybody does) I am sure that pro-military persons think that most intelligent people also seem to be pro-military. Personally I'm anti-miltary, and really dumb.

Re:Perhaps they have a conscience?

[McGiraf (196030)]

Too dumb to preview it seems

fixed:

"While I've known many brilliant people involved in making stuff for the military, most intelligent people also seem to be anti-military. I'm not saying that people are stupid to be pro-military, just that there seems to be some correlation."

The correlation is this:

You are anti-miltary.
You think you are intelligent. (Everybody does)
You think that people that agree with you are also intelligent. (Everybody does)

I am sure that pro-military persons think that most intelligent people also seem to be pro-military.

Personally I'm anti-miltary, and really dumb.

Re:Perhaps they have a conscience?

[samkass (174571)]

I think you just offended a lot of people. I certainly did a little soul searching when the startup I worked for got bought out by a large defense contractor, but in the end I can't directly affect whether we go to war or not, but I sure as heck can give our soldiers the tools they need to come home alive. Yes, I tend to vote Democrat and I think the Iraq war was one of the most boneheaded public policy decisions in my lifetime, but I still go to work every day supporting the troops in a very real way (unlike most of those who think supporting the troops means buying yellow magnets and bumper stickers).