Pros
Great researchers, and some great staff.
Cons
This regards only the corporate side, not the researchers. Unfortunately for the great researchers, the corporate leadership is terrible. Micromanagement from the very top, a toxic culture of fear and "rules," more directors and managers than any other positions, image management is the name of the game, while substance is a distant concept. Researchers on the most part have no idea about what happens on the staff side. Look at the horrible high turn over for staff at all levels. At the highest level of leadership you actually see no real leadership. They are micromanaging, lack vision, seek to make decisions which "make themselves" and as much as possible set things up so that someone else will be responsible if something goes wrong. But when things go right, they happily take ownership. Some truly incompetent staff are being protected by higher positions, which makes you really think that there's some sort of nepotism at play. Staff on the whole are unhappy but afraid to speak up, yet they acknowledge this situation among themselves. There are many staff who are really good too, but if you're competent and good at Vector, you will suffer. If you're good at BS and image management, you will flourish. What Vector's leadership has done to the Institute is unforgivable and is a slap in the face of the great researchers who founded the Institute! To hear leadership talk about researchers as though they're an appendix to Vector (I have) is infuriating. Try finding a list of the Institute's founders on Vector's website. I would not recommend a friend to get a position at the Vector Institute.