Eigen

I think bringing your significant other (or any friend) in a professional capacity (e.g. as a guest speaker, or maybe you want them to observe how you teach and provide feedback etc.) is definitely fine. But if the TA is bored and want their significant other (or any friend) to hang out with them when they are supposed to be working, then I don't think it's okay, even if everyone is professional! As a TA, when you are in your classroom, you are in a workplace, not a social space. 

Your publications matter a lot less than (a) the letter from your advisor on what kind of researcher you are, and (b) the fact that you'll have had a lot of research experience. 
Generally, getting publications as an undergrad is a bonus, but not in any way required for getting into a good graduate program- much less needing to have publications in the area in which you're applying.
Although not your specific question, I would also caution you strongly against being this certain of the area you want to go into this early in your career. As a sophomore, you haven't really seen much chemistry OTHER than organic, so it's quite hard to know for sure that's what you want to do and be convincing of that. 
The number of students who want to go into organic chemistry early in undergrad is immense, because that's the first course you encounter thats really *chemistry*. Go into the other courses with open minds, don't be so focused on what you think you want to do (organic synthesis) that you miss other interesting options.

From my experience, be as careful as possible: I found it really easy to burn bridges with these things. In fact, I recently ran into the program coordinator/graduate recruiter at a department where I declined admission over two years ago... And she said she still remembers being really upset that I declined. It's worth noting that you may well burn bridges simply by declining an offer, and you want to minimize that as much as possible.

Fields can be small, and keeping good connections is really helpful.

As was mentioned earlier, it's not like you'll make or break their year by not coming- but if they've taken the time to put together visits, financial packages, etc. they've already invested a decent amount of time in you, and you should be courteous and somewhat personal in declining, imo. Especially if you're in the running/have received fellowships, etc.

I wrote mine emphasizing my choice based on research fit. It was the easiest way to go, and got the best response, I think. I sent e-mails to PI's I'd met with (that I was particularly interested in working with), as well as the program director/DGS. Declining based on fit is a professionally respectable choice- declining based on financial packages, location, weather, etc. are all less so.

I still keep up with people from schools I did not attend, and I think the connections you make in the application/admission process can be quite beneficial down the road.

First off, your opinion is not truth. 
First off, lets talk about your example of journalism. In this day and age, do you honestly think it's a bad thing to have well educated scientists writing about science for the general public? There's a reason that's part of NIH and NSF's outreach goals (communication to the general public). 
Consulting? Depending on what you want to consult about, having a PhD is a valuable credential and well spent. 
Looking back at your original post, your arrogance is astounding. You seem to be sure that you know better who to allocate to projects (masters students vs PhD students) than people who have experience managing researchers. You seem to think that as an applicant, you're in a position to say who should or should not be allowed into a program, moreso than the people who are actually writing grants to fund those researchers. 
Personally, I don't look for someone who's life is dedicated to science. I think that's an attitude that leads to burnout. I also don't just pick students who want to go into academia. I pick students who I can forge a good professional relationship with, and who have a positive attitude, a good work ethic, and who have interests outside of our research. 
And as for your comment on picking advisors:
That's the advice I give to every one of my undergraduates applying to grad school, and what I gave to every prospective graduate student I met. Attrition from people who didn't pick based on a god mesh of personalities is huge in grad school- and grad school is about training and learning, and you do that best when you have a good fit of personality with the person you're working for. I can guarantee the mentor is picking people they mesh with in return.

First off, your opinion is not truth. 
First off, lets talk about your example of journalism. In this day and age, do you honestly think it's a bad thing to have well educated scientists writing about science for the general public? There's a reason that's part of NIH and NSF's outreach goals (communication to the general public). 
Consulting? Depending on what you want to consult about, having a PhD is a valuable credential and well spent. 
Looking back at your original post, your arrogance is astounding. You seem to be sure that you know better who to allocate to projects (masters students vs PhD students) than people who have experience managing researchers. You seem to think that as an applicant, you're in a position to say who should or should not be allowed into a program, moreso than the people who are actually writing grants to fund those researchers. 
Personally, I don't look for someone who's life is dedicated to science. I think that's an attitude that leads to burnout. I also don't just pick students who want to go into academia. I pick students who I can forge a good professional relationship with, and who have a positive attitude, a good work ethic, and who have interests outside of our research. 
And as for your comment on picking advisors:
That's the advice I give to every one of my undergraduates applying to grad school, and what I gave to every prospective graduate student I met. Attrition from people who didn't pick based on a god mesh of personalities is huge in grad school- and grad school is about training and learning, and you do that best when you have a good fit of personality with the person you're working for. I can guarantee the mentor is picking people they mesh with in return.

That's not really statistically true, depending on how you define research. 
Most people with a PhD will end up in a research-associated job. Not as many will end up as PIs, or at R1s- but that's not the entire research community, and to think it is is relatively narrow. 
Very few people with a PhD will end up being journalists, and still relatively few as consultants. The former because there aren't that many jobs, the latter because most people prefer a consultant that is also currently research active (i.e., a professor or leading a team in industry). 
I think you're twisting these career presentations into something they aren't. People don't talk about academia because that's the base assumption- it's expected everyone has that as a significant goal. It's to open people up to other career options that they may or may not know about. And to be inclusive of people pursuing PhDs for careers outside of academia. There's been (long term) a huge stigma against people mentioning anything other than "I want to be an academic" in graduate school, and many programs are only recently working to change that messaging to be inclusive of other career options.
I tell my students they should be honest and themselves on interviews, look for a group and a PI they feel they will fit in with, and be flexible about career goals. I think almost no undergraduate, or even junior graduate students, have enough experience with either career options or the field they're in to make a fully informed and final decision about a career. Graduate school is about learning and being flexible enough that you are open to new options as you learn about them, and being willing to follow your research into new areas that you didn't know about when you started.

Not currently, but have previously. Currently at a SLAC where almost all of my students are going to graduate school. 

I read a question on Quora a while ago on whether there are too many PhDs given out, and I thought the answer was succinct and to the point: 
https://www.quora.com/Do-we-really-need-this-many-PhDs-as-a-society/answer/Joseph-Wang-9?srid=Lbmp
Advanced degrees are much more than gateways for certain careers. It is very very dangerous to think of an education as something that should be limited only to certain people going for certain careers. The application process for PhDs is fairly rigorous, most people that get in are qualified and have what it takes to make the most of it and make an impact in WHATEVER WAY THEY WISH. They are driven by curiosity and the desire to challenge themselves and push the bank of knowledge forward. The PhD lets them flesh out those traits, gain a solid set of problem solving and technical skills and figure out where they can best apply them. If that means consulting for investment companies, then fine. If it means editing scientific communication, then fine. Why in the world would you keep someone from pursuing a PhD just because they don't want to do lab research??? Please take a step back and think of what that means at a societal level. 
Just because the PhD used to be solely for the academic path does not mean it needs to stay that way. There was also a time when women couldn't vote, and plenty of people screamed about how it should stay that way, which is obviously ridiculous. For better or for worse, the PhD is changing. Instead of being one of the people complaining about it, think of ways of using your position to impact this change in a constructive way. 

First off, your opinion is not truth. 
First off, lets talk about your example of journalism. In this day and age, do you honestly think it's a bad thing to have well educated scientists writing about science for the general public? There's a reason that's part of NIH and NSF's outreach goals (communication to the general public). 
Consulting? Depending on what you want to consult about, having a PhD is a valuable credential and well spent. 
Looking back at your original post, your arrogance is astounding. You seem to be sure that you know better who to allocate to projects (masters students vs PhD students) than people who have experience managing researchers. You seem to think that as an applicant, you're in a position to say who should or should not be allowed into a program, moreso than the people who are actually writing grants to fund those researchers. 
Personally, I don't look for someone who's life is dedicated to science. I think that's an attitude that leads to burnout. I also don't just pick students who want to go into academia. I pick students who I can forge a good professional relationship with, and who have a positive attitude, a good work ethic, and who have interests outside of our research. 
And as for your comment on picking advisors:
That's the advice I give to every one of my undergraduates applying to grad school, and what I gave to every prospective graduate student I met. Attrition from people who didn't pick based on a god mesh of personalities is huge in grad school- and grad school is about training and learning, and you do that best when you have a good fit of personality with the person you're working for. I can guarantee the mentor is picking people they mesh with in return.

First off, your opinion is not truth. 
First off, lets talk about your example of journalism. In this day and age, do you honestly think it's a bad thing to have well educated scientists writing about science for the general public? There's a reason that's part of NIH and NSF's outreach goals (communication to the general public). 
Consulting? Depending on what you want to consult about, having a PhD is a valuable credential and well spent. 
Looking back at your original post, your arrogance is astounding. You seem to be sure that you know better who to allocate to projects (masters students vs PhD students) than people who have experience managing researchers. You seem to think that as an applicant, you're in a position to say who should or should not be allowed into a program, moreso than the people who are actually writing grants to fund those researchers. 
Personally, I don't look for someone who's life is dedicated to science. I think that's an attitude that leads to burnout. I also don't just pick students who want to go into academia. I pick students who I can forge a good professional relationship with, and who have a positive attitude, a good work ethic, and who have interests outside of our research. 
And as for your comment on picking advisors:
That's the advice I give to every one of my undergraduates applying to grad school, and what I gave to every prospective graduate student I met. Attrition from people who didn't pick based on a god mesh of personalities is huge in grad school- and grad school is about training and learning, and you do that best when you have a good fit of personality with the person you're working for. I can guarantee the mentor is picking people they mesh with in return.

First off, your opinion is not truth. 
First off, lets talk about your example of journalism. In this day and age, do you honestly think it's a bad thing to have well educated scientists writing about science for the general public? There's a reason that's part of NIH and NSF's outreach goals (communication to the general public). 
Consulting? Depending on what you want to consult about, having a PhD is a valuable credential and well spent. 
Looking back at your original post, your arrogance is astounding. You seem to be sure that you know better who to allocate to projects (masters students vs PhD students) than people who have experience managing researchers. You seem to think that as an applicant, you're in a position to say who should or should not be allowed into a program, moreso than the people who are actually writing grants to fund those researchers. 
Personally, I don't look for someone who's life is dedicated to science. I think that's an attitude that leads to burnout. I also don't just pick students who want to go into academia. I pick students who I can forge a good professional relationship with, and who have a positive attitude, a good work ethic, and who have interests outside of our research. 
And as for your comment on picking advisors:
That's the advice I give to every one of my undergraduates applying to grad school, and what I gave to every prospective graduate student I met. Attrition from people who didn't pick based on a god mesh of personalities is huge in grad school- and grad school is about training and learning, and you do that best when you have a good fit of personality with the person you're working for. I can guarantee the mentor is picking people they mesh with in return.

First off, your opinion is not truth. 
First off, lets talk about your example of journalism. In this day and age, do you honestly think it's a bad thing to have well educated scientists writing about science for the general public? There's a reason that's part of NIH and NSF's outreach goals (communication to the general public). 
Consulting? Depending on what you want to consult about, having a PhD is a valuable credential and well spent. 
Looking back at your original post, your arrogance is astounding. You seem to be sure that you know better who to allocate to projects (masters students vs PhD students) than people who have experience managing researchers. You seem to think that as an applicant, you're in a position to say who should or should not be allowed into a program, moreso than the people who are actually writing grants to fund those researchers. 
Personally, I don't look for someone who's life is dedicated to science. I think that's an attitude that leads to burnout. I also don't just pick students who want to go into academia. I pick students who I can forge a good professional relationship with, and who have a positive attitude, a good work ethic, and who have interests outside of our research. 
And as for your comment on picking advisors:
That's the advice I give to every one of my undergraduates applying to grad school, and what I gave to every prospective graduate student I met. Attrition from people who didn't pick based on a god mesh of personalities is huge in grad school- and grad school is about training and learning, and you do that best when you have a good fit of personality with the person you're working for. I can guarantee the mentor is picking people they mesh with in return.

Does it bother anyone else that schools like to start out the career path options presentations without mentioning going for a career in academia?
Why the heck would you go to grad school for your PhD if that is not your goal. I'm sick and tired of that shit, you don't need a PhD for consulting, you don't need a PhD to become a science writer, you don't need a PhD for an industry job..
Schools are letting in too many people, at every interview I've been to, I've met tons of smart people, alternatively, I've also met people that make me think "Why are you here?". I hear stuff like: "I'll be picking a mentor and doing rotations with people whose personalities mesh with mine" are you kidding me? -- I'll be doing rotations with people who are going to challenge me and push me to the edge - I'll be going with my gut feelings on who I choose to work with and it will purely be based off of their science. 
There are TOO many PhD's awarded, have you seen the statistics on PhDs on welfare (not just Biology PhDs to be fair but all in the USA) something like 30 percent on welfare. 50 years ago there were about 600,000 Bio researchers, now there are 6-7 million, it's not sustainable.
Schools need to clean up their acts, Masters degrees need to be funded not paid for by students - that can solve two problems: replicability as MS degrees can be focused on reproducing data and not novel data generation; it can also give an avenue for all the people who want to do what I would call "soft" stuff with their degrees. PhDs should only be given and encouraged for those who have raw talent and can become peers with professors not every person who applies.
If science does not keep you awake a night and doesn't wake you up in the morning... good luck.
When I'm a PI one day, I will not even let a student who does not want to become a SCIENTIST anywhere near my lab, not even for a rotation. Some of the people on this website and IRL just make me cringe, somebody needs to scientifically slap them with the truth.
What are your thoughts? Are you getting your PhD without the intent of at least trying to become a PI or Lecturer? Why? 

Well thanks for the honesty I suppose. I'm going to be blunt with you, so try to not take offense, but you seem awfully arrogant. Some of your points are valid and I agree with; there are currently too many PhDs being trained. At this rate it's not sustainable, it's simply not. But to say a PhD is not worthwhile unless you stay in academia is silly and myopic, and should someone choose industry over academia that does not make them any less of a scientist. Many PhDs are choosing industry and alternative careers simply because they find academia is not an attractive option. Being on an entirely soft money salary fighting tooth and nail for grants in order to feed your family isn't exactly everyone's idea of a stable career, and if you can't see that then perhaps you should reflect on the current climate of academia a bit more. You know what percentage of PhD graduates end up in tenure track positions? It's low. While academia was once the default path, it's quickly becoming just the opposite and schools are changing to reflect that. 
You are exactly the the type of person I am looking to avoid for rotations. I hope during the course of your training you take off your blinders, because your narrow mindedness is something that is not a great character trait. 

It is unethical to spend grant money outside of the guidelines and conditions in which the money is given. However, from the information here, it's not really clear what these guidelines are and it will highly depend on what type of grant it is. For example,
If the grant is just awarded for having a good proposal and it's like a prize rather than a typical research grant, then you can do what you want with the money.
If the grant is awarded for the project but doesn't have restrictions on exactly how you spend the money, then as long as you spend the grant money towards completing this project, it should be okay. i.e. maybe you decide that you won't fly for fieldwork but you spend the money on some other research expense instead.
But some grants require you to spend it exactly on what you propose only. So in this case, if you no longer need to spend the money you asked for, you will need to give it back. 
So, you should consult the conditions that come with the money/proposal and talk to the person in charge of sending the grant money to you. Usually grants in the 2nd or 3rd category above aren't managed by an undergraduate so if it's managed by someone else at your school, you need to talk to them too.
Finally, to answer the other question, yes, institutions that want to confirm how you spent the money will ask you for proof of the expenses. They will want receipts and potentially a copy of the boarding pass. 
 

I think you're severely overestimating how many people had some traditional middle/high school "typical" relationship. And how impactful that experience is on the rest of us.
 

There's a large difference between ranking undergrad/masters programs and PHD programs. I pulled the rankings for CS because I don't know the reputation off the top of my head (since its not my field), but their rankings in other areas aligns well with the UNWR rankings I gave, in a general sense. UIUC has top shelf grad programs in the sciences, CS no exception.

You kept talking about undergrad rankings- and I don't think it really matters where you did undergrad as long as you have a good record to show for it. From my experience, admissions committees don't find program ranking to be that important.

That said, graduate program ranking (qualitatively, not quantitatively) is more important. In large part due to the competitiveness, but also due to the fact that it's *the* terminal degree. That said, post-doctoral positions, for those fields that have them, will definitely trump grad program ranking once again.

I brought up rankings because you keep trying to compare a small UI system school with UIUC, which is one of the top colleges in the country, including unfavorable comparisons to Harvard- something that just isn't true, any way you slice it. Additionally, all of the points in your last post about SLACs vs RU/VHs could be made in comparing to any of the Ivies just as well as to UIUC. For the most part, I think everyone will agree that good undergraduate focused institutions turn out more "mature" undergraduate researchers due to more focus being placed on their training. But that still doesn't explain why you're unfavorably comparing UIUC to Harvard, or why you think your degrees from another UI school is equivalent to one from UIUC.

And as to academia vs. industry... UIUC is very well known in industry as well, and from what I know has a number of great uindustry contacts. A least in my field. And from what I can see, the same is true in CS.

Also, you weren't "attacked by an Internet troll". You were given some rather blunt truths by another, better respected, poster. You are the only one in this threads that's resorted to attacking someone.

Oh, and this? They aren't the one who needs to grow up, apparently.

And as to "somewhere truly elite like Harvard", it's ranked 17the relative to UIUC at 5. Think you might need to rethink your wording a bit.

I can't say for CS, but UIUC is one of the top schools in a lot of physical science disciplines. And since you brought it up, it's ranked 5th out of PhD programs in CS, beating out most of the Ivies.

And since you brought it up, a degree from Penn State College Station is definitely different than one from any other campus. And the same is true for any other state school system I know. Just because they share the same "name" doesn't mean much- they build reputations separately and are regarded as different schools, albeit in the same "system". Thats why if you look through any rankings you'll see schools with different campuses listed differently.

If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. Different programs have different faculty, and different faculty make programs very different places to get a degree from.

What do you mean by family/spouses? I think visiting with your spouse and/or your dependents that will make the move with you should you accept the PhD offer is generally acceptable, but visiting with other family that won't move with you is often awkward. Note: I am not trying to say this is the "right" thing for academics to think or how it "should" be, but I am trying to convey how most departments may receive a request to include your family in your visit. Also a disclaimer: there may be differences in field!
So if you are including people that will move with you (generally spouse and children) then you should let the school know ahead of time that you would like to have your family visit with you because they are moving too and would need to be part of the decision. My spouse (we don't have children) visited some graduate schools with me for schools where it was easy for my spouse to make the trip. I think you should tell them up front because 1) they probably need/want to know this to arrange accommodations for you, 2) they might actually be able to arrange additional activities for your spouse and family while you are in one-on-one meetings with faculty and students and 3) they can ensure your family is included in the social events that often happens in the evenings at open houses. And if there are meals, they can ensure they get the right dietary needs etc. 
If you are bringing your spouse and family, and the school is paying for your trip, be sure to clearly separate out what the school is and isn't covering. You don't have to take this suggestion, but my experience is that it goes better when you clearly state up front that you do not expect the school to cover any expenses for your family. So, for example, you might need to pay half of the hotel room cost if they normally have visiting students share a hotel room but you have an entire room for your family. And of course if you are booking a flight, figure out how the flight will be booked and paid for. Some schools prefer to book flights for the visiting student using their own system, so you will have to provide your family info and then somehow work out how to pay them for the other flights. Or, they might ask you to buy your own flights and then reimburse your own ticket. It will go smoother if you work this out ahead of time.
Finally, having spouse and family around is super awkward if they just follow you around the entire visit. In follow up emails with the person coordinating the visit, you should figure out which portions of the visits might be good for your spouse/family to join (usually meals, social events and things like campus tours, housing tours etc.). Things like one-on-one meetings or orientation type sessions aren't great for family to be a part of so you might want to plan other things they can do while you are busy with the main Open House programming. 
The above was all for the case where you mean a spouse and dependent children that you support who will be moving with you. If you mean other family members that don't generally move with the graduate student (e.g. parents, siblings, etc.) then I have slightly different advice below. I know that it's certainly possible for a graduate student to have parents or other family members that might move with them too, but it could be a lot more awkward if you include parents and siblings in a Open House. It's up to you though on what you want to do!
My advice for this set of family members is to not include them as part of the visit at all. I think you should arrange for their flights and accommodations completely separate from the school. I would also not have them accompany you to any of the evening social events. Note that these visits typically have very long days---our department has a fully booked schedule for our visiting students from 8am to 10pm. So, your family members that accompany you would basically be doing their own independent trip and they might meet up with you at the end of a long day. For this reason, I'd highly recommend against including these types of family members on this trip. They can always visit you after you move in and it will be a better trip for everyone! Again though, this is just my opinion/advice.

Really, there's no way to know for sure. A lot depends on how you rank relative to the other students interested in joining the lab. 
A PI could be looking for research productivity (past), or be looking at how you frame your potential for productive research with them. They might have someone with a particular skill set that they would like to have in the lab- and they may or may not know this when they interview you. It might be about personality, or a perceived similarity of working style. 
Honestly, don't overthink it. Once you get to the interview stage, a lot of it is a toss-up. Most PIs are in the position of having 2-6 students all of whom they think would be a good fit for their group, and having to pick one. What they end up going with isn't something you can do a lot to control, or really anything about your credentials.
That said, usually (imo) it's not going to be something obvious in your CV (i.e., number of publications) that decides a PI post-interview. That's what they use to decide who they want to interview. It's going to be how you can talk about your research, and how it feels like you'll fit into the group, both personally and professionally. 
Be cordial, be enthusiastic, and overall be yourself. Nothing makes someone less certain of you than a feeling that you're not being honest, and it makes them worry that they're not choosing based on the "real" person. Don't try to be what you think the person interviewing you wants. 

Just to be clear, the CGS resolution is not a binding document. It's a guideline a number of schools have agreed to for mutual benefit. 
It's also worth noting that the CGS resolution only effects financial offers- not admission offers. A school can ask you to accept an offer of admission before April 15th, just not an offer of a financial package. They're usually (but not always) one in the same. Some schools offer financial packages after admissions. 
I also suggest you be wary of thinking of this as intentionally unethical on the schools part- the honest truth is that many graduate faculty and departments have no clue what the CGS is. It's something a dean or provost signed, but not necessarily something they educated the school about. 
Finally, I'd remind everyone that the CGS resolution isn't directly intended to benefit students, although that's a good benefit. It's intended to put all graduate schools on an even playing field. The person "wronged" by a school jumping the gun is the other schools who are not, and might lose a good student- although this indirectly has a negative effect on the student, by limiting concurrent choices. 
That said, it's a harsh change of reality when after grad school the chances of ever deciding between concurrent offers is nearly non-existent, and you have to decide on what's currently available in a vacuum. 

This whole post makes me sad. It's questionable to get a dog when you know your near future is up in the air and you might not be able to take care of it, but to have a dog and then wonder if it's going to make you miserable? I wish you put more thought into this before you adopted the puppy. I hope if you choose not to keep the dog, then you actively look for a good home for it. 
 
 

So since we seem to be continuing to discuss here, let me shed some additional light on the decisions. 
First, Byn was not the only one warned. They were the only ones that chose to take a private warning (something that came with no sanctions other than comments telling them what they were doing that was against the rules) and chose to make it into a public, personal attack against one of the long-standing moderating staff. 
They were warned for a confluence of several events, none of which individually would have risen to the level of even a warning past the general "cool off" posted by Fuzzylogician in this thread. It's also worth noting that warnings were issued individually several hours after a general warning (posted here) was issued and ignored. 
First, they were abusing the reputation function. We consider abuse of the reputation function to be consistent and continued down voting of a user that is not linked to the content they post. Byn was down voting YES!!! for both disagreeable posts (those about Manoa) and perfectly benign posts (congratulating someone else on an acceptance). Byn was not the only user warned for such behavior. It's pretty obvious when someone is going back weeks on someones posts and down voting them all at once. 
Second, we consider the compilation of personal details with intent to cause a user harm a significant violation of the forum rules. This was not the most egregious situation I've seen on my time here (compared to an incident where someones address and personal information were posted), but we consider that the intent matters. 
Third, they were consistently hounding YES!!!'s posts and accusing them of lying about admits and trolling the forums. Again, not the most egregious violation I've seen, but along with the other two issues it's a pattern of attacks against a specific individual. 
Hence, a warning. A warning that was private, with no sanctions applied to the account- just a warning telling them what behavior we considered wrong and why. I hardly consider that "scapegoating" someone. 
And for the record, "warnings" are not publicly visible. So despite all the allegations of who was or was not given a warning, none of you can know that. All you can know is that Byn was given a warning because they chose to make it public. 
As to the reputation reset on YES!!!, it is not the first time we've done it. Given the extreme abuse of the reputation system exhibited by some users, we feel it was warranted. Each post still has negative reputation tied to it, so it's not like there isn't a record. Similarly, no posts have been removed. The only thing removed was specific information (GPA and GRE scores), which is something we do for any user who feels their identity might be at risk. So there is still a trail of posts and reputation, it's not like any of that has been hidden. The best option would have been to just go back and remove specific reputation groupings, but there is no easy way to do that. So between the injustice of letting a lot of undeserved negative reputation stay, or getting rid of some legitimate negative reputation, we erred on the side of removing it all. 
Also, FWIW, attacking a school in a fit of frustration, while poor behavior, is not abusive towards another user. Bad posting choices, sure, and in bad taste, absolutely. But not directed to another person here with intent to cause harm. 

I know you're asking when people decided an R1 was the right path for them- I can't exactly help with that, but I can tell you when and how I decided that an R1 wasn't right for me. 
It comes down to the fact that I see an R1 as often being a "worst of both worlds". In my field, many of the major advances in research happen outside of academia- government labs, industry labs, defense labs. They also happen to some degree at R1s, but increasingly only at the top ~5-10 R1 schools due to funding constraints. 
On the flip side, an R1 position isn't great for teaching- most R1 faculty do enjoy teaching, but they do so very little of it. One or two courses a year, frequently small and/or graduate student driven. This also leads to an increasing reliance on adjunct labor and cheap graduate students for the primary teaching at those schools, which is something I have ethical issues with. 
Finally, R1 faculty in my field rarely get a chance to do anything themselves- they end up the consummate layer of middle management. Write grants, edit papers from students, look over projects from students. Many of the faculty I know have largely lost all of their lab skills after a few years!
And this is all in addition to the lifestyle issues you mentioned. I'm married, I want to have kinds in a couple of years, and I want to be around to be a large part of their life. I love my work, but I want it to be a part of my life, not all of my life. And generally, R1 jobs in my field require everything you have to give. I've even been told several times that it's impossible to be tenure track and married at the same time- one or the other will give. I do disagree with that sentiment, but I don't really want to go into a job where that is the prevailing view. 
So I decided a couple of years ago that I would prefer to pick a job with a more discrete focus- either go the research route, and go into government/industry, or go the primarily teaching lab and find an undergraduate focused school. 
All of that said, deciding I didn't want to push for an R1 (and, like you, I feel I'm fairly qualified for it) was one of the hardest things I've had to do. It feels like I'm shutting a door on a huge portion of possibilities, but I finally reached the point where I couldn't prepare for all possible career outcomes. No matter what people tell you (and faculty at R1 schools say this, a lot) preparing for an R1 doesn't prepare you for a selective LAC. The latter schools want people who can show why they want to be there, and what they've done to prepare- not people that just decided an R1 wasn't for them. You can make the switch, but it's not as easy as it's made out, from what I hear.
I have several friends in post-doctoral positions that are still trying to decide, so I really do understand the struggle.For you (and for them) the decision is harder. You don't like teaching, and I'm imagining there's less industry and government work in your field for a heavy research focus.
One area you might be interested in, however, is institutional research (or another related admin position). At a smaller school, you could transition after tenure into administration. You'd keep your research work alive, and I'd imagine IR would complement (or potentially complement) your research interests. I have a couple of colleagues that have made the transition, and really enjoy it.