Two points, ok fine, four and a half, while I procrastinate for a bit.
First, about research funding and medical schools:
1) Folks have been bandying around the #9 in NIH funding. They're actually #7 in the most recent tally. NIH funding is going down. Pitt funding is still going up. That's impressive.
2) Drastic moving around in the USNews ranking generally has more to do with changes in methodology than drastic changes in funding levels. Pitt has had an extended gradual run in funding increases over the last, say 15 years. They're here to stay--this isn't due to some bobble of 50million in funds for the last year.
3) I reject the idea that good research scientists make poor teachers. Some of the best researchers I know are some of the best teachers I know. To get grants and publish in the top journals, you have to be able to communicate well. And some of the worst teachers I've had, are actually some of the worst scientists.
Not to mention, over the past while clinical NIH funding has gone up relative to basic science funding. I would speculate that part of the reason Pitt has improved in funding is because they are on top of that shift in resources. You might feel like research dollars have little relevancy to your medical education, but lemme tell you, we're going to be spending the rest of our lives reading research articles--research is relevant.
And regarding life decisions:
4) OP. If you show up in August, I'm going to kick your whiny tail right out of Alleghany County.