Another Black Eye for Penn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
2.) Why did the writer omit this smoking gun from her reporting? Do her editors know of this smoking gun? Why was a woman who claims to have zero relationship or support from mum and dad submitting this internally to Penn financial aid:

Additionally, I partially support my younger sister, who will be starting college soon. I will then have the additional strain of working to put her through school and ensure her basic living expenses are met. Because she also has special needs, additional resources such as medication, testing, learning aids, and more create further expenses throughout this process.” She wrote the same in her 2018-2019 PFAS form. Ms. Shaw told OSC that Mackenzie has not provided, and that there was no reason to believe it would become necessary to provide, “basic living expenses” or medical costs for Cat (who does have learning challenges). Asked about this, Mackenzie told OSC (and it was separately confirmed) that Mackenzie set up a 529 account for her sister to use towards higher education. OSC understands that the account has approximately $6,000 in it at this point. According to Mackenzie, the seed money for this account may have come from her biological father, although she does not quite remember.

McKenzie ignored this in the older threads. For obvious reasons. Penn caught her red-handed and there's no way to weasel out of this. No doubt the New Yorker hack read this in Penn's records and chose to ignore it too, because she wrote this with an agenda to make the big bad rich university look evil.

Even if I take your position at face value, other than lying, what did Penn “catch her red handed” doing?

[Anonymous]

NP, who hasn't followed any of this before. I believe her. I have a friend who was sexually and physically abused by her father. Her mom found out (he was raping her when she walked in), and completely ignored it all. They were "pillars of the community".

This part. This is something she struggles with, and was instantly identifiable to me.

"In her high-school journal, she had described this cycle of doubt. “You start to think that maybe you had it wrong and that maybe it actually did happen the way that they say it did,” she wrote. “And then you just throw away the real memory, the true one, and replace it with the one that they have fed you a million times, until that is the only thing you can remember.” "

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New Yorker article notes that Mackenzie made some mistakes and I think there is even room to believe her mom over her, although I don’t, but even if you did Penn comes off horribly for the way they treated her (not that I expect it to affect Penn’s admissions— if you want to go to be management consultant something like this isn’t going to discourage you).

I disagree. Penn should have expelled her and tried to claw back the over $300,000 in aid the rich brat looted.

Also interesting we have so many profiles of this rich white girl but zero mention of her SAT score. And her transcript had at least some Bs on it; she was NOT even valedictorian or salutatorian at her tiny high school! Clearly SAT is never mentioned because it was mediocre and it would expose she is a midwit only at an Ivy, for free no less, because of all these falsehoods. She was an unimpressive dime a dozen rich white girl from St Louis who ought to have ended up at Missouri or maybe a Wake Forest tier private school if her rich doctor mom would have paid for it. I believe she cooked up this crap to get into an elite college.

Expelled her???

This is absurd. She had already graduated. This didn’t become an issue until the 2nd semester of her year as a graduate student. And by that time Penn stated that she had already completed all of the requirements fir her master’s degree.

Nonetheless what would have been the grounds for expulsion? I don’t see any.

Regardless of her skin color, she was no longer a rich girl either at the time she applied to Penn nor at any point while she was a student at Penn.

Yes, expel her and claw back all degrees. It's happened in recent memory at Harvard, Georgetown and Stanford. If you were admitted under any false pretenses i.e. fraud the institution has cause to make the duration of your time there null and void. Penn's offer to her is a slap on the wrist. She should also be pursued by the feds for financial aid fraud as Pell Grants were used to offset her over $300k in freebies at Penn.

Are you suggesting that they expel her retroactively? Is there even such a thing.

The facts simply don’t support your position.

1. She wasn’t admitted under false pretenses. The Questbridge Director recently reviewed her original application and to this day stands behind it.

2. There was no financial aid fraud. None. The article shows that she answered the question honestly on the form that qualified her for financial aid.

[Anonymous]

I believe Fierceton about the abuse, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a Black male student who acted the way Fierceton did would be facing severe consequences, not sympathetic New Yorker articles. Fierceton is benefiting from significant privileges that other students would not receive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
She’s a master manipulator. The article is part of the plaintiff lawyers’ appeal to the public and to taint the jury. Or to force an early settlement. Most good lawyers don’t litigate in the press.

Bingo. But nobody reads New Yorker anymore. It's a rag running on fumes. I hope Penn does not settle. This rich brat needs to be exposed on record.

Exposed for what?

And she’s not rich. Just the opposite. In fact, she’s penniless and burdened with college debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any mother who *laughs to investigators* when asked about her BF molesting her daughter has a screw loose. I cannot take the mom seriously at all after that. Then the BF denies it happened? Even though there’s contemporaneous evidence that it did? And he’s been reported to police *twice* previously by girlfriends? And yet the mom blew off her daughter’s concerns about him? This is a ducked up family.

Also, what was the bit about her mom calling police when the BF showed Mackenzie his gun? It was sort of dropped in there with no context.

Exactly.

This, exactly. And there are more than a few over-the-top, nasty, borderline vicious, posters on here who know jack sh-- about what actually happened. And know even less about sexual assault. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

Rich? She was away from family in FOSTER care when she went to PENN. All of her physical injuries, documented in real time. The mother's reactions -alone- make me believe the kid. You people are effing crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aviv is a "storyteller". A[nother] piece exposing this schemer wasn't fresh or worthy of being published. The hack writer knew that, of course, so she curated this "story" in which she purposely omitted key details which make it clear as day this is a devious schemer ala Elizabeth Holmes.

Right now it's a cozy life being a spoiled idle student well into your mid 20s on a rich professor's dime. My prediction, in the near future the schemer will quietly come out as bi and marry some rich boy. And likely rekindle with rich doctor mum once she has to enter the real world and needs a new sponsor* — and will want to secure her place in mum's will, of course. Schemers never stop.

a new sponsor*

[Anonymous]

LOL'ing at the people claiming The New Yorker (a premiere investigative journalism publication) is a "rag."

Stick to Fox, kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
She’s a master manipulator. The article is part of the plaintiff lawyers’ appeal to the public and to taint the jury. Or to force an early settlement. Most good lawyers don’t litigate in the press.

Bingo. But nobody reads New Yorker anymore. It's a rag running on fumes. I hope Penn does not settle. This rich brat needs to be exposed on record.

Exposed for what?

And she’s not rich. Just the opposite. In fact, she’s penniless and burdened with college debt.

I never understood why a family would spend a dime on private high school (like Mackenzie’s did) unless they could afford to put their kids through a university without loans. Makes no sense. And before you ask, I went to “bad” public schools.

[Anonymous]

I never say this (and realize it’s not at all likely) but it genuinely seems like Mackenzie’s mom may have found this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, Mackenzie hater, what do you have to say about her mom reacting with lolz about her boyfriends sexual abuse of her 15 year old?

Why are you trying to divert attention with salacious sexual assault hearsay? Seems to be a go-to.

From what I've read, it does actually sound like the "trainer" boyfriend was probably a loser, certainly sounds like the successful and attractive mother could and should be doing a lot better than what sounds like a mooch targeting the older and wealthy female MD. However, that does not make him a sexual abuser or whatever is being spread. And she is not the first kid, an only child at that, to go absolutely nuts when a mother (or father) starts dating someone. I believe the lip stick alley term for the mother's poor judgement is d***-notized, as in hypnotized by a new sexual partner. The mother probably needed better judgment. But the mooch guy has no criminal record, right? Was never charged with anything in this, right? I mean you think it's a huge conspiracy by everyone in STL and county and state's attorneys to cover up all of this for a random rich female doctor? Or is the center piece of this never-ending drama, from St Louis to Philly to Oxford, a theatrical spoiled brat?

The police asked mom about the incident. Mom never responded by saying that it didn't happen, or that the kid was making any of it up. "Morrison said that Lovelace had made an innocent mistake. “She thought it was funny that [Lovelace] mistook her”—Morrison—“for a 15 year old girl,” Brandt wrote."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL'ing at the people claiming The New Yorker (a premiere investigative journalism publication) is a "rag."

Stick to Fox, kids.

I've been reading New Yorker for 40 years. It's a shell of its former self. Magazines are dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McKenzie claims in the New Yorker her rich private day school college counselor first broached the topic of QuestBridge. Did the New Yorker verify that?

Verifying that means the counselor admitted she [counselor] *first* broached it -- not to be confused with the counselor and McKenzie speaking in general about the program. Obviously they spoke about the program as she was applying to it.

Also, did McKenzie apply for other lucrative awards as a hedge, e.g. Coca Cola, Gates Scholar? Did her counselor *first* tell her about all of those, too?

Why in the world would a counselor at a rich day school know all of the ins and outs of exclusive scholarships meant for poor first-generation (and foster) students? More to the point, why would a rich private school counselor, who has at least dozens of other seniors applying, know that a brand new "foster kid" senior technically qualifies for it? The timeline of the McKenzie's legal entrance into "foster care system" and the deadline to first apply for Questbridge was literally weeks.

It just doesn't pass the smell test. It seems, to me, she obsessively studied up on all of these "hooks" and lavish awards on college admissions forums long before she hatched this scheme and/or long before she was technically in the foster system.

Sounds like you have lots of questions and no answers. So maybe you should just reserv judgment.

What doesn’t pass the smell test is her mother’s story that her injuries were self-inflicted. Or the mother’s story that her boyfriend’s child molesting was because he mistook Mackenzie for her - especially in light of the fact that the boyfriend doesn’t corroborate this version of the mother’s story and by the fact that he was accused of sexual assault by other women.

Your speculation about her “scheme” is not supported by any facts and is contradicted by social service professionals who actually investigated this case - something which you have not done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we going to re-litigate this whole subject again? Two threads on this very same topic have already been locked.

You’re free not to participate. Why so anxious to shut it down?

I participated twice before, and it got locked twice, so I don't want to make all the same arguments again that have already been made.

Then don’t.

The reason the topic has been reopened is that the New Yorker article presents a lot of new information. Making the same arguments again would simply mean that you are ignoring the new information or didn’t bother to read the new article. In that case, please don’t participate.

Nothing is new here. Back and forth -- like the other threads. I'll wade back in, but I'm aware it might get shut down again.
Penn was right in informing Rhodes of the information it received about Ms. Fierceton, and Rhodes was right in revoking her scholarship.
That was all discussed ad nausum in the other two threads.

What’s new is information presented in the article. Have you read it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we going to re-litigate this whole subject again? Two threads on this very same topic have already been locked.

You’re free not to participate. Why so anxious to shut it down?

I participated twice before, and it got locked twice, so I don't want to make all the same arguments again that have already been made.

Then don’t.

The reason the topic has been reopened is that the New Yorker article presents a lot of new information. Making the same arguments again would simply mean that you are ignoring the new information or didn’t bother to read the new article. In that case, please don’t participate.

Nothing is new here. Back and forth -- like the other threads. I'll wade back in, but I'm aware it might get shut down again.
Penn was right in informing Rhodes of the information it received about Ms. Fierceton, and Rhodes was right in revoking her scholarship.
That was all discussed ad nausum in the other two threads.

What’s new is information presented in the article. Have you read it?

Yes, nothing was new. Have you read her lawsuit? Do you know what she is alleging?