Talk:RAND Corporation

Opening comment

According to the article, RAND is funded 'predominantly' by 4 of the 5 sources mentioned. I do not think this word means what you think it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.21.124.49 (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The name (and acronym) RAND originally meant Research And No Development. When the company was spun out of Douglas Aircraft Co., Donald Douglas (and the Air Force generals who worked with him) determined that the company would engage in pure research, without developing products from their activities.PBCal (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Achievements

I think achievements section needs an overhaul/reformulation at least this part looks rather questionable to me:

"The achievements of RAND stem from its development of systems analysis. Important contributions are claimed in space systems and the United States' space program, in computing and in artificial intelligence. RAND researchers developed many of the principles that were used to build the Internet. Numerous analytical techniques were invented at RAND, including dynamic programming, game theory, the Delphi method, linear programming, systems analysis, and exploratory modeling. RAND also pioneered the development and use of wargaming."

You cannot claim all the achievements of people (in particular university professors) who've been technical consultants to RAND at some point as achievement of RAND. For instance indicating that RAND (or its researchers) have invented game theory is rather ridiculous, game theory was around before RAND even existed.--Kmhkmh 04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The same is true for linear programming, which was used in WW2.

There are definitely quite a few unsupportable claims in this article. I wonder if there are some pro-RAND people out there trying to influence it. Smocking (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Politics

Per several of the suggestions below to address RAND's political lean, I have restored a specific example of a noted scholar (Noam Chomsky)'s criticisms of RAND, including quotes from a RAND senior economist, all properly attributed. These were deleted by Larklight, with the comment "Nothing to do with RAND". I find this a bit hard to follow, unless ... Larklight, if you read this could you please clarify your relationship with RAND? Namesinger (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to confirm that I am not and never have been employed by RAND, have no links to RAND, and have never read anything they've written. Larklight (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Should someone mention that they're evil and conservative and run the world along with international zionist protocols of the ancient floppy disk? 'Coz that's sort of a "fun fact" about RAND...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.5.26 (talk • contribs)

Don't think this comment is particularly appropriate, Mr. 66.169.5.26. And I don't appreciate the use of the phrase "international Zionist," it smacks of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion...   –Gravinos (Politics is the stench that rises from human conflict...) 07:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, a discussion about their political lean should indeed be discussed. Kent Wang 06:46, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there is some stuff at Disinfopedia, which is GFDL as well. .. and in fact, I thought there was a link from here to there. :/ Guaka 13:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

LOL... people never cease to amaze. Just shows your ineptitude at research or even simple observation, first poster (wish I had gotten on here earlier!). If it weren't for RAND you wouldn't have quite a few of the tools and conveniences you likely utilize on a daily basis. In addition, their research fueled space exploration, mathematics, and the first theories and plans for the Web. That's just historically, (yes I know the involvement with Vietnam but tell me who else could have done a better job? Any research facility would have done as bad if not worse... but regardless what's interesting now: My mother works at RAND and in the last two years it seems they've swung dangerously to the Left in policies and practice, threatening their often highly regarded non-partisan and objective mission and attitude. 24.130.190.199 06:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of RAND's political leanings, is there any basis for things like Aegis Maelstrom's "Its mission is to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. Its core values are quality and objectivity."? Other than as corporate boilerplate? Bananafish 06:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Should there be a mocking quote in the intro? Wouldn't that be better served further down in the article? --71.112.173.51 19:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I created a new section "Opinion and culture" and moved the quote there.

--akds 02:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rand involvement in authorship of HR1955 and SR1959 has now become a matter of public interest that merits discussion. Is this article the appropriate context, or is there another that would be more suitable? -John, an unregistered user

We're really not even going to say it's 'conservative', out of sheer terror of the dreaded 'PoV'? Surely 'conservative' is innocent enough. I agree with Bananafish that the corporate twaddle is unacceptable: the entire section seems to be sourced almost exclusively from Rand's own bumf, and that won't do. Whetever next? The Bible article telling us it's the word of God based on a verse in the Bible?Sartoresartus (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Where does the name come from ?

Is there a reason why the project was named RAND? Does it stand for anything? (Random Article Naming Device, for example)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.11.165 (talk • contribs)

try reading the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.137.16 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the explanation is near the beginning of the article. RAND is an acronym, unlike the name MITRE corporation, which is a near-acronym but actually was selected because it looks and sounds appropriate in a very nice way: linking it to a cabinet-maker's or carpenter's mitre box - used for making fine, detailed work.98.67.161.223 (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the explanation of the origin of the name "RAND" in the article is incorrect. It is often stated as Research ANd Development, as in this article. But the name actually was created to mean "Research and NO Development." See my comment above.PBCal (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR

Re: [[Category:Organizations and people who predicted the collapse of the USSR]]

Quote:

In 1968 Egon Neuberger predicted that "[t]he centrally planned economy eventually would meet its demise, because of its demonstrably growing ineffectiveness as a system for managing a modernizing economy in a rapidly changing world."20

20. Egon Neuberger, "The Legacies of Central Planning," RM 5530-PR, Rand, June 1968, quoted in Gertrude E. Schroeder, "Reflections on Economic Sovietology," Post-Soviet Affairs 11 (July–September 1995): 197–234.

From: Cahn, Anne H. (September, 1998). Killing Detente: The Right Attacks the CIA. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN 0271017910. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help) 3 Reviews

Signed:Travb 07:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Similar organisations in other countries

Are there similar organizations in other countries? I think it'd be an interesting addition to the article, if any exist.--Anchoress 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there is nothing of comparable size or influence.

Also similar to RAND, but in the United States, also, are the MITRE Corporation and the MIT Lincoln Laboratories.

Sources of Funding

To make this entry consistent with similar entries on other non-profit entities, it would be helpful to add a section on the corporation's finances and sources of funding.

Not just helpful, but essential! How can an article on an organization that generates analysis of current events not contain information on its funding! That's on the same scale as not noting the owner of a newspaper, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.65.171 (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

RAND's 2010 Annual Report includes lists of its donors, clients, and grantors, and a financial statement approved by auditors of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. A. Rizzo (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

notable employees

We should spin that section off into its own article. Also, I was thinking that a template and/or category might be appropriate. Does anyone have any preferences. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. There has been no discussion, hence no consensus to move. I have no opinion—I am just wielding the admin's mop. ●DanMS • Talk 04:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (old)

RAND → RAND Corporation — less ambiguous —Ewlyahoocom 06:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

can we trust it when

rand edits it's own page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.127.20 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Larklight:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Larklight's assertion that a quote from a senior RAND economist, Thomas Wolf (cited by Noam Chomsky and properly attributed), has nothing to do with RAND is difficult to understand in constructive terms. I note also that Larklight's claim below that Robhogg's edit (also critical of RAND)is unsourced is mistaken: while it may not be fully or properly sourced, it is attributed, and IMO at least marginally relevant. Namesinger (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is easy to understand. Those sections never criticised RAND, only US f. policy. Larklight (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticism is of a senior RAND economist supporting a militaristic philosophy of U.S. foreign policy. It is unclear from the quote (and irrelevant) whether Wolf is proposing policy or defending existing policy. The point is that the statements being criticized were made by a RAND official, and thus the criticism is of RAND. If Larklight doesn't think Noam Chomsky's comments here qualify as criticism of RAND, perhaps Larklight could explain what would in Larklight's opinion qualify as criticism of RAND? Or if Larklight is in fact asserting that there is no real criticism of RAND, perhaps Larklight would be so kind as to say so outright. 208.251.94.251 (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1) If Chompsky were to say 'RAND is evil' or 'RAND made x mistake and makes it often' or 'RAND was responsible for this false inteligense, leading to this' or even 'RAND are so secretive that no-one knows what they do so we can't hold them accountible', that would be criticism. Or if anyone else of note said it.

2)a However, the current two sections do not constitute criticism of RAND. 2)b Infact, they hardly even constitute criticism of US f. policy: While uit's implicit, it is never actually mentioned that the policies are bad.

3) Finally, just becuase one official says so, does not mean it is the official RAND POV. Infact, I doubt they have one. Please find a source that criticises RAND- not one that mentions RAND and then criticises someone else, or even criticises one official. Larklight (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

By Larklight's logic, one could accuse RAND of directly sponsoring murder, treason and rape, but this would not qualify as criticism unless these were specified as "evil" or "mistakes". I maintain that any reasonable person would understand this quote from Chomsky as criticism of RAND in the person of a RAND official. I stand by the quote, believe it better represents the concensus of the community than does Larklight's deletion, and will continue to restore it until I or someone else finds a better example of criticism of RAND.

Larklight:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Namesinger (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I made three points. Now numbered for ease. [with 2) spilt into a and b] You're replied to 2b, but not the more important 1), 2)a or 3). Please don't continue to add it in until you have. Infact, you haven't actually really addressed 2)b- no-one advocates murder, rape etc. (I'll leave aside treason) as ends. However, clearly people do suggest (the contents of the comment) as means to an end. As such, please respond to 1), 2)a+b and 3) before you re-insert

And please don't use an obveously inapropreot vandalism warning. If you wish to template the regulars, I have a feeling you should start with level one. Larklight (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

An example of good criticism is that of Gregbard Larklight (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I added another, but I'm sure there is more hard-hitting criticism published out there than these. These both are both quite apologetic to RAND. That book Prisoner's Dilemma has some interesting stories about RAND. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

____

The following passage was included under criticism, but it reads more like criticism of the game theory than of this corporation. It is also unsourced. Therefore I moved it here:

Game theory was studied and promoted by the RAND Corporation as a way to model human behavior and 
influence government policy. As noted in The Trap, 
when RAND's analysts tried the games on their own secretaries, they disobeyed the ground rules that 
they should behave selfishly and try to outwit their opponents, choosing to co-operate every time. 
This did not, in the eyes of the analysts, discredit the theory, but instead proved that the 
secretaries were unfit subjects.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the source for this, but it is, actually, a criticism of the research methods used by the RAND Corporation in a particular study. To exclude data on the grounds that it does not fit your pre-conceived notions is an abuse of the scientific method. Robhogg (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned Comments...

What's with all the unsigned comments? Note to Commentators: sign your comments!   –Gravinos (To each their own*      _{*as long as they leave me alone.}) 07:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to research the Talk Page editing history to discover who wrote what and when, then tag the unsigned comments with an {{unsigned2}} tag. —Quicksilver^{T @} 00:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RAND is not the American Research and Development Corporation (AR&D)

A note that I will just put here for now since the American Research and Development Corporation (AR&D) does not yet have its own article as of this writing. RAND is not AR&D. AR&D was the first publicly owned venture capital firm. See Georges Doriot. The founding of AR&D is also mentioned in Flanders, Ralph E. (1961), Senator from Vermont, Boston: Little, Brown, pp. 188–189. — ¾-10 03:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Security AT Rand

Because of the nature of research at RAND it has always had very good security. The one time that I went there with a former employee to meet with a current employee in the mid-1980s, the guard addressed the former employee by name, saying that he could not let him in. The guards were required to remember who each person who could enter was by site, and to address and greet them when entering or leaving! Saltysailor (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Missile gap

A programme on BBC Radio 3 (5 August 2008) alleged that the Rand Corporation was responsible for inventing the Missile gap and denying that it was false. Any firm evidence? Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 22:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Rand?

Shouldn't this article be titled "Rand"? According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), trademarks always use normal capitalization. Unless anyone can explain why it shouldn't be "Rand" I'm going to change it in a week. Robomanx (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A valid point. However, there is one other linguistic force at work here, which is the variation in schools of thought on how to capitalize acronyms. RAND is probably the way that most people are used to styling it. That doesn't mean that WP can't follow the school of thought that styles, e.g., NATO as Nato and AIDS as Aids. But although we know that we can, we would have to decide whether we should, given the fact of RAND's having been styled most prevalently in all caps over the years. The discussion of this topic at Acronym and initialism#Case is worth reading. Cheers, — ¾-10 19:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

One other thing that I should say is that the U.S. defense community (or military-industrial complex, depending on your flavor of connotation) during the past half century (which is the culture that RAND came from and still largely serves) has usually used all-caps styling for acronyms and initialisms. However, this has been a meme, not a commandment from the heavens. I would lean toward using the prevalent style here at WP. But either side (RAND vs Rand, NATO vs Nato) can be argued effectively. — ¾-10 19:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I did some further digging. The Wikipedia article on NATO spells it NATO, not Nato. Likewise for CENTCOM, EUCOM, etc. And the title of the Alpo article is "Alpo" but the body of the article spells it "ALPO". I'm less confident in the style guide than I was. Robomanx (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Economy bullshit/buzzword overkill

What freak wrote that first paragraph? It reads like a sales pitch from RAND.You could win bullshit bingo in seconds, by reading this. Please change this to a human language. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.153.124 (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You were right about the sales pitch. I redacted the POV. The problem was the POV more than any meaningless use of big words. Now that the POV is trimmed, what's left seems like an accurate statement. — ¾-10 02:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

History

I can't find ANY mention of Rand's heavy involvement with US strategic policy in the 1950s-1970s, which is REALLY REALLY disturbing because they basically defined nuclear policy for that era. Rand CAME UP WITH mutually assured destruction, and yet there is nary a mention here. History_of_nuclear_weapons. This makes me suspicious of corporate whitewashing. Can anyone resurrect this, because I can't find it in edit history? I have added a section on Rand History as pertains to nuclear weapons. Also, IP address 66.253.167.191 appears to have made a lot of NPOV white-washing edits to the page. Some of them are still present. Would someone like to revert? 24.211.249.237 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I edited your addition, and removed "Unfortunately, the Rand Institute has recently conducted a clandestine campaign to remove all mention of their involvement with Cold War nuclear policy from Wikipedia. This is highly unfortunate because Dr. Kahn's applications of game theory to nuclear war were highly original and set the course of history." That kind of editorialising and chat within articles isn't OK. Now, do you have a source for RAND's involvement in US nuclear strategy, and Kahn being the inspiration for Dr Strangelove? Fences&Windows 20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Same guy -- I'll see if I can hunt down a citation or two for the nuclear policy, but I know parts of that are referenced in other pages dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear weapon design. I probably was over the line on the editorializing, but I didn't want the whole section to mysteriously disappear (along with much of the other info about Rand's history). It's kind of sad because they've removed history here (and in other places) that they should actually be proud of. Their development of MAD (debatably) prevented a nuclear exchange between 1960 and the fall of the Soviet Union. Their works on game theory are also pretty kick-ass as well -- have "The Compleat Strategyst" by Williams and McKinsey's "Introduction to the Theory of Games" on my shelf. Will try to flesh out history with more citations in info if I can find time. 24.211.254.154 (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias

• Why does this article read like a public relations blurb for a cosmetics firm? We are talking about one of the leading progenitors of military activity (war) in the world (with side funding for seemingly "non-partisan" research)... Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed the most shockingly biased article I have EVER seen on Wikipedia, which I've used daily for years.

I was SO shocked I finally created a WP username in order to comment here.

IF WP stands for anything, it surely stands for as much objectivity as possible, a comprehensive view, and accountabilty to users.

This article - and especially its history - is a SCANDAL.

Perhaps the current form and the history of the article say an awful lot more about RAND than the actual PR content.

If that's unfair, then the article's management is a PR disaster - which may also say quite a lot about a closed organization's view of the world outside. Noitseuq (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've flagged it for cleanup, bias and lack of independent sources. I think most non-partisan contributors here will agree. As I said above, it simply won't do to have most of these claims sourced from Rand's own publicity material: that's worse than no source at all. We also cannot seriously pretend that this is a totally value-neutral organisation. I agree that this sort of thing is in the long run a PR disaster for the Rand staffers who seem to be monitoring this page. It makes you look like you've got something to hide. Have you? Sartoresartus (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

bookreview

Soldier's of Reason http://thetyee.ca/Books/2009/07/08/ColdWarCult/ Rumjal --rumjal 11:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)  :

"RAND's greatest triumphs were the war in Iraq and the economic policies of the Bush administration. Now both are in ruins. But for the foreseeable future we will live with the consequences of RAND’s thinking, just as we have for the past 60 years."

(I would advise anyone who wants a more comprehensive and objective overview of RAND than that contained in the very strange WP article to read instead the Chalmers Johnson review of Soldiers of Reason, linked at the very end of the strange article.Noitseuq (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC))

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

---

RAND → RAND Corporation — because a) this is how the organisation titles itself (go to their website http://www.rand.org/ and look at their logo), and b) it's commonly known as the "RAND Corporation" (see this google search, with 1.35 million ghits, and c) "RAND" is a highly ambiguous term (see Rand (disambiguation)), commonly used in this capitalised form to refer to random-number generation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note I have linked to this discussion from the related discussion on the eponymous category, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 7#Category:RAND_Corporation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Move Methinks the current name was an overzealous interpretation of style guidelines which say to avoid "Ltd.," "GmBH," and so forth in article names. That's one thing when the organization is usually referred to without it, as with Samsung or Banco Santander, but another when it is intrinsic to the name as used in everyday references, as with the Hudson's Bay Company or the Olin Corporation.- choster (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support as common name. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Plenty of good reasons and no reason not to. — ¾-10 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation needed:

I believe that a citation is needed for the following section:

RAND is also the home to the Frederick S. Pardee RAND Graduate School, one of the original graduate programs in public policy and the first to offer a Ph.D. ... The Pardee RAND School is the world's largest Ph.D.-granting program in policy analysis.

While I am not calling either section into doubt, it would be nice to see some reliable references for either claim. Sorry if this seems nitpicky, but with an article as controversial as this one, it is best to have all claims covered with sources. I will attempt to research citations for this purpose at a later time. --Ampersandestet (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

RAND President James A. Thomson Stepping Down Fall 2011

James A. Thomson, who has served as president and CEO of the nonprofit RAND Corporation since 1989, will step down from his post in fall 2011. A search for his successor is in progress. I will enter the successor's name here when it is known. In the interest of transparency, I am a web editor for the RAND Corporation website. A. Rizzo (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael D. Rich will become the fifth president and CEO of the RAND Corporation on November 1, 2011. [http://www.rand.org/news/press/2011/10/04.html A. Rizzo (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Fairness

It is very fair of RAND to make publications on US military strategies available to anyone who wants to buy them. This prevents the US from becoming a hegemony. Thanks for the fairness, RAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.114.202 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Outrageously low quality

For an institution that was (and to a certain extent, still is) a veritable fountain of highest-quality research, this article is a disgrace. There are quite a few review papers/reports written in the 1960s and 1970s on RAND's early history. 46.138.66.128 (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)