are an R1 doesn't mean that you're "less biased" than other people. The big thing that they teach grad students there is how to play the game of academia. You learn what boxes to check and what the rules are for getting grant money, getting your papers accepted at major publications, etc. That being said, a lot of these rules are justified, because there is a certain level of empirical rigor that is expected at these journals/publications, and being at an R1 teaches it well/has that expectation of their professors.

That being said, research tier isn't necessarily the end-all for determining the strength of a university. BYU is up there with Stanford on value for the education received. You don't pay a lot as an undergrad, but your degree generally is viewed with a decent amount of respect (if nothing else than the reputation of BYU grads as good employees in the corporate world, see the BYU Business school consulting placements as an example). I'll use WSU as my counterpoint. Even though it's an R1 it's the most expensive school in Washington, and having an undergraduate degree from there doesn't distinguish you from any other state university nationwide. But they produce high enough quality research, have enough expenditures on research, and receive enough grants to be considered R1. As an undergrad though? It'd be questionable to choose WSU over BYU for almost anything besides maybe Ag considering value above all else.