R1 versus R2

I hadn't really heard anything about R1 versus R2 designations until I started to look for faculty positions. I picked my undergrad and grad schools because they were cheap and I saw cool research coming out of them. So when I started looking for faculty posts my advisor asked me what I wanted in a faculty job and I said I wanted to do cool research, be my own boss (mostly), have more freedoms in my hours, be on the hunt for the greater good, and mentor students...not necessarily in that order. He said to look at R1 schools first. So I looked exclusively at R1s with a couple R2s sprinkled in where I thought I'd make a good fit. I didn't really question this since I thought R1 schools would give me the best chance at grant success, and ultimately, my success as a researcher.

As I was interviewing I found myself liking the R1 schools for no good reason. I think I started to bias myself. So I did the logical thing and started researching what R1 means. I'm sure most of you know this, but the first thing I learned is that no one is supposed to use R1 anymore. Carnegie has new names for the same thing. I'm going to stick with R1 because I'm typing this on my phone and R1 is faster. 

I thought R1 was more specific to the department, but it turns out it's university-wide. So let's say you have some heavy-hitter departments trying I  that bring in crazy NASA or DoD funding, or maybe you have a fantastic medical school that bring craptons of funding, or maybe you have a ton of PhD programs but don't produce good students or do worthwhile research, these few good departments can be the sole reason your university is R1?  I'm not sure though.  If this is the case, the crappy departments in the university could be able to recruit better candidates because the other departments are pushing the whole school into R1 status. 

What if you're the only multi-million dollar department in a university?  Your name will be dragged through the dirt because the other departments can't step it up. Now you won't be able to bring in the best candidates because of a number after 'R'?  I understand that each discipline knows which schools are the heavy-hitters, but the R1-2 designation is like a scarlet letter, keeping universities down, no?  It just seems like this to me, and I might be completely incorrect (in which case, please correct me blogosphere), but I was blown away by this revelation. It didn't stop me from concentrating on R1s because I thought they would provide me with the highest amount of research time, cool equipment, and great collaborations. Not to mention, I've been told by several researchers that the university name matters when applying for grants. But part of me, in the back of my mind, thinks that I can help bring an R2 up. Help build something new and better.  Am I misinterpreting?  If I am, I'm actually kind of glad.  People focus too frequently on titles: Dr-this, Fellow-that, VP-this, Prof-that...my business card has my name, department, company, address, and phone number.  Honestly, this blog is the only thing that is related to me having three letters.  I regularly tell people not to call me 'doctor'.  I really have to wonder if these titles and designations weren't around if I would have accepted a job with an R1.  Maybe my hidden bias creeped in, and that's why I selected the university I selected.