The R1 label is thrown around a lot, for obvious reasons, even though the classification is now technically outdated. What I'm curious about is if anyone has a sense of how well the label R1 "really" maps onto the list of institutions that Carnegie considers "very high research activity" (VH). Examples: 1) My adviser (I am a postdoc at an R1) has turned up his nose at a few institutions I have mentioned as considering for jobs, even though they are classified as VH; 2) A department chair at a prestigious private university had to convince a dean that a prominent public R1 was "actually quite good." Indeed, when I look through the list of schools classified as VH, I am often surprised because some of them I would never have thought of as being "good" by any means. While this is a reflection of my own ignorance, I am wondering how idiosyncratic my experiences are; does anyone else have a sense that the R1 label is "bestowed" on only a certain number of VH universities (e.g., Ivies, Big 10)? I just sometimes wonder if people have their own "personal R1 lists" based on an old, outdated classification scheme (bearing in mind that many of the people making important decisions are quite old themselves!). Thanks for any insight.
Curious Postdoc Person