Of nearly 400 national universities, none of Arizona’s three public universities broke the top 100 on the latest rankings of national universities. The lowest-ranked school was Northern Arizona University (NAU) at 288, followed by Arizona State University (ASU) at 117, and then University of Arizona (UArizona) at 103.
This data came from the U.S. News 2022 college rankings.
NAU tied for their 288 ranking with 10 other schools, barely eking out a ranking at all. After 288, U.S. News ranked each school without specificity in a range of 299 to 391. Among those not given a specific ranking were University of Phoenix and Grand Canyon University.
The 10 schools tied with NAU were Dallas Baptist University in Texas, East Tennessee State University, Long Island University in New York, Marshall University in West Virginia, Middle Tennessee State University, Portland State University in Oregon, South Dakota State University, University of Hawaii at Hilo, University of Puerto Rico – Rico Piedras, and University of Texas at Arlington.
NAU averaged a six-year graduation rate of 55 percent, with those who didn’t receive a Pell Grant doing better (61 percent) than those who did (50 percent).
NAU’s median starting salary for alumni is $48,100, and average an acceptance rate of 82 percent.
ASU tied for their 117 ranking with four other schools: Rochester Institute of Technology in New York, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in New York, University of South Carolina, and University of Vermont.
ASU averaged a six-year graduation rate of 69 percent, with those who didn’t receive a Pell Grant doing better (71 percent) than those who did (59 percent).
ASU ranked 1 for most innovative school, 10 for best undergraduate teaching, tied at 54 for top public schools, tied at 70 for best colleges for veterans, 139 for best value schools, and tied at 179 for top performers on social mobility.
ASU’s median starting salary for alumni is $54,400, and average an acceptance rate of 88 percent.
UArizona tied for their 103 ranking with 13 other schools: Clark University in Massachusetts, Creighton University in Nebraska, Drexel University in Pennsylvania, Loyola University Chicago in Illinois, Miami University in Ohio, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Saint Louis University in Missouri, Temple University in Pennsylvania, University of California Santa Cruz, University of Illinois Chicago, University of San Francisco in California, University of South Florida, and University of Tennessee Knoxville.
UArizona averaged a six-year graduation rate of 64 percent, with those who didn’t receive a Pell Grant doing better (68 percent) than those who did (59 percent).
UArizona tied at 46 for most innovative school and for top public school, tied at 62 for best colleges for veterans, ranked 122 for best value school, and tied at 143 for top performers on social mobility.
UArizona’s median starting salary for alumni is $55,600, and average an acceptance rate of 85 percent.
The top ten national universities were, in order: Princeton University ranked at 1; Columbia University, Harvard University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology tied at 2; Yale University ranked at 5; Stanford University and University of Chicago tied at 6; University of Pennsylvania ranked at 8; and California Institute of Technology, Duke University, Johns Hopkins University, and Northwestern University tied at 9.
The remaining three of the eight Ivy League schools — Brown University, Cornell University, and Dartmouth College — fell outside the top 10 but ranked within the top 20.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
$1.2 million from the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) will fund the University of Arizona’s (UArizona) “identity exploration” efforts for indigenous children.
Specifically, the grant was awarded to the Native Student Outreach, Access, and Resiliency (SOAR) program within UArizona’s College of Education. Native SOAR is a “multigenerational mentoring program culturally grounded in indigenous teachings and Ways of Knowing.”
Native SOAR Director Amanda Cheromiah explained in a press release that the program uses culturally responsive teaching to improve indigenous students’ college enrollment. Culturally responsive teaching aligns with the controversial Critical Race Theory (CRT).
“Historically, Indigenous students have lower enrollment, retention, and graduation rates in higher education compared to other student populations,” said Cheromiah. “Native SOAR closes educational gaps by providing culturally responsive programming and mentorship that increases the number of indigenous students who enter and graduate from college.”
The program also promotes other, similar controversial ideologies such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and concepts like systemic racism.
We’re in New Orleans for #NMI19 because we want to grow in our ability to articulate the complexities of diversity, inclusion & equity work. Not only bc @uarizona needs it but also bc we are raising up future leaders. pic.twitter.com/4tfOLnJnlR
“It's difficult for one single person to eliminate or decrease the impact on institutional systemic racism,” said @fjtucson, Native SOAR grad assistant https://t.co/XkuaLUEBqE@uarizona@UAZEducation
“Advocating for access and equity is personal/exhausting, [especially] when you are constantly centering the uninformed with the realities of genocide, slavery, and institutional racism,” tweeted Native SOAR.
TY, Native fac, SA warriors, emerging scholars & non-Native allies for your support of NA students. Advocating for access & equity is personal/exhausting, esp when you are constantly centering the uninformed in the realities of genocide, slavery and institutional racism. We TY❤️ pic.twitter.com/LNbCiVSD0I
The 10-week program has UArizona students mentor middle and high school students for three to four hours a week on college, cultural resilience, leadership, and identity exploration. It also offers students a class worth three university credits per semester.
The grant will enable the purchase of 750 tablets loaded with the mentoring resources for students, and 65 tablets for program staff and educators. It will also pay for more workshops and K-12 educators’ professional development opportunities.
Since its inception in 2005, the Native SOAR program has earned national recognitions, including one by former First Lady Michelle Obama.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A new Tucson-based abortion rights group, Arizonans for Reproductive Freedom, began gathering signatures for a ballot initiative making abortion a right within the Arizona Constitution. The group filed their application last Monday. With a July 7 deadline, they have a little over six weeks to collect over 356,000 signatures to qualify.
A University of Arizona (UArizona) College of Medicine professor and Tucson OB-GYN, Dr. Victoria Fewell, filed the application as the group’s chairwoman alongside the group’s treasurer: UArizona Senior Program Coordinator, Planned Parenthood Arizona Secretary, and former Pima County Democratic Party Executive Director Shasta McManus.
McManus has been active with Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona (PPAZ), recently voicing over a biographical feature on avowed communist activist and Black Panthers supporter, alleged black militant, and University of California professor Dr. Angela Davis. Last week, PPAZ Chairwoman Chris Love bragged about her husband assaulting a black Trump supporter while at a pro-abortion rally in Phoenix.
The proposed constitutional amendment not only declared the right to elective abortions at any point in a woman’s pregnancy. It reads as follows:
Every individual has a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.
Neither the state nor any political subdivision shall restrict, penalize, frustrate, or otherwise interfere with the exercise of the right to reproductive freedom, including: any individual’s access to contraception; pre-viability medical and surgical termination of pregnancy; or medical and surgical termination of pregnancy when necessary to preserve the individual’s health or life.
Neither the state nor any political subdivision shall restrict, penalize, frustrate, or otherwise interfere with a qualified, licensed healthcare professional providing medical services or any person providing non-medical services necessary for the exercise of the right to reproductive freedom.
The term ‘viability’ means the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the qualified, licensed healthcare professional, based on the particular facts of the case before the healthcare professional, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.
The activist group also began asking for donations.
Arizonans for Reproductive Freedom is working to give you a voice & vote this Nov with a ballot initiative to protect reproductive rights. We believe every person should make their own healthcare and family planning decisions
— Arizonans for Reproductive Freedom (@azreprofreedom) May 17, 2022
The group filed the ballot initiative application about two weeks after the leak of a Supreme Court draft ruling determining whether abortions constitute a state issue.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
In a joint letter last week to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), University of Arizona (UArizona) current and alumnae swimmers and coaches criticized the decision to allow transgender University of Pennsylvania (Penn) swimmer Lia (née William) Thomas to compete in the Division 1 national championships. The UArizona group asserted that the NCAA “failed everyone” by trying to “appease everyone,” insisting that Thomas worked against the equality of women in sports enshrined by Title IX.
“We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Title IX this year. From the birth of the NCAA in 1906 until 1972, women had to fight to earn the law that provided equal opportunities for women in sports. It took a male to female transgender person one year to take the women’s swimming national championship title,” wrote the group. “This is not equality. Women’s standings, titles, records, and scholarships are suddenly at risk again. Opening the door to allowing natural born men to acquire precious, life altering financial aid packages often split up between multiple women per team defeats the very essence of the flagship legislation we are ironically celebrating this very year.”
The swimmers and coaches also noted that the UArizona Athletics Director, Associate AD for Diversity, and Senior Women’s Advocate remained silent on the issue of transgender women — men — in women’s sports.
Thomas won the 500 freestyle race, but lost in the 200 and 100 freestyle races; however, Thomas reportedly has lost races intentionally in the recent past. Teammates who reported his intentional losses claimed that he was trying to prove that males don’t have biological advantages to females, observing that it was clear Thomas wasn’t trying. They speculated that Thomas colluded with a transgender male swimmer from Yale University, Iszac Henig, so Henig would beat Thomas and make it appear as though women could outperform men.
“Looking at [Thomas’] time, I don’t think [Thomas] was trying,” the Penn swimmer alleges. “I know [Thomas and Henig are] friends and I know they were talking before the meet. I think [Thomas] let her win to prove the point that, ‘Oh see, a female-to-male beat me.’”
The UArizona swimmers credited their decision to submit their letter based on a letter submitted by University of Texas (UT) alumnae and coaches a week prior. Among those on the UT letter were Olympians and UT Hall of Honor inductees, as well as pro golfer and UT Hall of Honor inductee Cindy Figg-Currier.
The letter, first published in Swimming World Magazine, is reproduced in full below:
Dear NCAA Board of Governors,
Do we have a voice?
It’s hard to express the anguish the women’s swim community has experienced this past week watching the 2022 NCAA Swim & Dive Championships. On one hand, we feel we are witnessing irrevocable damage to a sport that has transformed our own identities for the better. On the other, we have reconnected with each other in sisterhood after many busy years living our lives beyond the water’s edge. We are grateful for the many women who have stood up to publicly speak up in protest of your policies including UT’s swim alumni who penned a thoughtful letter to their Athletic Director and inspired us to write from the University of Arizona alumni perspective. We have collected some of our own thoughts on paper to plead to swimming leadership at every level to take immediate action to protect our women athletes.
In 2008, USA Swimming chief Chuck Wielgus was asked to comment on a “culture of fair play” regarding a female swimmer who had tested positive for a banned anabolic agent called Clenbuterol. He claimed at the time “within the culture of swimming, if you’re doing something you shouldn’t be doing, we want to catch you and throw you out of the sport. In other sports, it’s about excuses and justifications and being innocent until you’re proven guilty.” According to the USADA website, Clenbuterol is prohibited in sport because it “promotes muscle growth through anabolic properties.” The Mayo Clinic reports “the main anabolic steroid hormone produced by the body is testosterone” and that it “has anabolic effects promoting muscle building.” In a little over a decade, USA Swimming, the leading organization of swimming in the world has surrendered its firm stance on fair play. This has encouraged other organizations such as the NCAA to make accommodations for biological men who have had the benefits of testosterone throughout natural development and beyond.
According to Duke’s Center for Sports Law and Policy, “there is an average 10-12% performance gap between elite males and elite females” in sport. What advantage does testosterone have for natural born men in swimming specifically? This year in the 500 freestyle the men’s A standard qualifying time is 4:11.62. The women’s A standard qualifying time was 4:35.76. That is a difference of 24.14 seconds. To put that into perspective, the male swimmer in the last seed going into the meet would be two full laps ahead of his female counterpart in this event. This one example alone demonstrates the advantages a biologically male swimmer has over a female. Physiological advantages exist.
Looking back on another moment in swim history, in 2010 FINA banned the use of high tech performance swim suits as the “shiny suit era” saw “records falling at an alarming rate” due to a competitive advantage given to swimmers who had the suits available to them. This year at the fastest short course swim meet in the world, the body inside the suit is what raises cause for concern.
The decisions of the NCAA this year hoped to appease everyone by allowing Lia Thomas to compete directly with women. Instead, the NCAA has successfully failed everyone. A target was placed on the back of a trans athlete subjecting this person to devastating national outcry and humiliation. This swimmer’s lone points for Penn this March catapulted a team to a top-20 program in the country after failing to score a single point last year. Additionally, women athletes competing in the meet were forced to swim in unfair direct competition therefore eliminating all integrity of the entire championship meet.
We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of Title IX this year. From the birth of the NCAA in 1906 until 1972, women had to fight to earn the law that provided equal opportunities for women in sports. It took a male to female transgender person one year to take the women’s swimming national championship title. This is not equality. Women’s standings, titles, records, and scholarships are suddenly at risk again. Opening the door to allowing natural born men to acquire precious, life altering financial aid packages often split up between multiple women per team defeats the very essence of the flagship legislation we are ironically celebrating this very year.
Female to male transgender athletes do not have the same opportunities as their male to female counterparts. They are heavily disadvantaged when it comes to earning a spot on the team they identify due to strength and speed differences between gender categories. This was represented this year in the 100 freestyle by Yale’s Iszac Henig, a transgender male competing at the women’s championship. This swimmer placed fifth in the event. Henig’s time of 47.52 earned the swimmer an All-American award and added 13.5 points to Yale’s team score. Had Henig chosen to swim at the men’s competition however, the same time would have failed to even reach the men’s A qualifying time of 41.71 by almost six seconds dashing the whisper of a chance this swimmer would even step up to the block.
There were many options the NCAA could have implemented to create a fair environment for women competitors. A trans athlete could compete in the meet that aligns with birth gender such as Henig did. At the championship level, there are 10 lanes available in the pool while only 8 swimmers compete per heat. Therefore, a trans athlete could have been added to any finals heat in addition to the 16 women who qualified without pushing any of the deserving women out of the finals such as VT’s Reka Gyorgy , who personally spoke out about the inequality she was subjected to being shut out of the finals. Trans specific heats with separate awards categories and scoring was another alternative. The NCAA could have implemented the more stringent USA Swimming guidelines at the very least. Moving forward, trans swim meets could be organized and built into a new category of athletic competition similar to the Paralympic or Special Olympic platforms to continue to widen the umbrella of inclusion in athletics.
We are writing this letter to the NCAA who has a President at the helm responsible for cutting both the University of Washington’s swimming programs in 2009. Mr. Emmert stood firmly by his decisions as “the right ones for us.” The NCAA Board of Governors is predominantly men. Of the 65 Athletic Directors in the Power 5, only 5 are women. At the University of Arizona, our Athletics Director, Associate AD for Diversity, and Senior Women’s Advocate have remained silent on this issue unfolding over the course of this entire season. These revelations and disparities alarm us when it seems there was no urgency in skillfully and educationally addressing how the scientific and biologic differences may impact women’s competitions. Do we have a voice? The people responsible for protecting women’s swimming should swiftly rectify the guidelines. The women from the University of Arizona will not quietly stand down while our victories and accomplishments float away.
We are eager and willing to discuss directly with the NCAA potential steps it can implement to create new solutions for the expanding athletic family. Please contact us with your next steps towards a fairer future.
The University of Arizona (UArizona) will award one future college credit to individuals who play their informational version of the popular Age of Empires video game, called “Illuminated Histories.”
UArizona partnered with Microsoft to create the modified game. History department head and associate professor of Roman history Alison Futrell, a self-described fellow “gamer,” will teach the course alongside associate professor of medieval history Paul Milliman. Milliman described the course as the first step toward an online B.A. history degree.
Age of Empires is an acclaimed series of nine video games and several spin-offs, with the first game released in 1997. A principal designer for the original game series, Bruce Shelley, said on his Microsoft Games profile page that the developers relied mostly on children’s books to concoct the historical basis of the game. He dismissed the idea that the game relied on extensive, detailed research, instead characterizing it solely as a strategy game.
“The research for Age of Empires was done in the local community library. Extensive, detailed research is not necessary or even a good idea for most entertainment products. The best reference materials are often found in the children’s section because this is the level of historic interest for most of the gaming public,” said Shelley. “If you build in too much historic detail you run the risk of making the game obtuse. The players should have the fun, not the designers or researchers. We are trying to entertain people, not impress them with our scholarship. The words ‘model’ or ‘simulation’ are often a warning signal that the game is not fun.”
In a separate panel interview years later, Shelley clarified that history wasn’t the main point of the game, but rather “human experience.”
“The games aren’t so much about history but about the human experience, which is not just what we’ve done and what we are doing, but what we might do,” said Shelley.
“We love to study the role of games in the premodern world: exploring how they’ve impacted human society and individual lives over time. Games connect the past, present, and future in a way that makes them ideal for teaching and learning history,” said Futrell. “History begins with wonder, which is why you will have opportunities to dive deeper into the history surrounding Age of Empires IV. If you’ve ever wondered about topics like medieval medicine, the role of women warriors, or the culture of the Mongol empire – professor Milliman and I have written ‘Illuminated Histories’ from the University of Arizona to help you engage with the historical sources.”
UArizona’s latest recruitment campaign, first reported by Arizona Daily Independent, came out a day before the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) announced a significant low in college enrollments. The latest ABOR report noted that about 46 percent of students went on to enroll in a two- or four-year college degree in 2020. Based on declining college enrollments, college completions, and high school completions, ABOR estimated that less than 17 percent of current high school freshmen would graduate from a four-year college.
The ABOR report claimed that college degrees directly impacted the quality of Arizona’s workforce.
“This is a concern because educational attainment is a primary factor that impacts the quality of Arizona’s labor market and the state’s ability to compete regionally and nationally for high-paying employers and jobs,” stated ABOR.
According to a 2018 study, the majority of those who played video games graduated from college. A vast majority of the remainder had completed at least one or more years of college or graduate school at the time of the survey.
UArizona hasn’t been the only university to turn to video games to increase the appeal of a higher education. In recent years, universities have begun to offer scholarships for competitive video gaming, called “esports.” The 2018 championship game for League of Legends, a multiplayer game, reached a peak of 200 million viewers – more than double than the last three Super Bowls. The League of Legends championships normally pull well over 100 million viewers.
Global video game revenues have surpassed the global movie and American sports industries combined.
That potential success that governing bodies like the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) are considering the addition of esports to their purview.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
