UMC suburban college student lied about background to become prestigious Rhodes Scholar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the Penn response (TLDR: it wasn't the mother who outed her - NYT columnist Nick Kristof did her in!):
"Fierceton’s Story is Exposed
44. The Philadelphia Inquirer story, published just one day after Fierceton was awarded the Rhodes Scholarship, spread her false story outside the confines of faculty inboxes and admissions folders. Written by Wendy Ruderman, it began: “Mackenzie Fierceton grew up poor, cycling through the rocky child welfare system. She bounced from one foster home to the next.” Nicholas Kristof, a New York times journalist, retweeted the Ruderman article. On November 23, Fierceton sent a tweet to Mr. Kristof, thanking him for retweeting the article.
45. Former acquaintances in Fierceton’s hometown took note as the story circulated around the country. On the same day that Kristof retweeted the article, Penn received an anonymous email. The author first noted their relationship as a former friend and classmate of Fierceton’s (then-Mackenzie Morrison), and offered this insight: I was very surprised at the inaccurate portrayal of her life. … Where I strongly support her activism surrounding the foster care system, I find her claims disheartening. Growing up in the foster care system, being a first generation student or growing up in a low income household brings real hardship … That hardship cannot be attributed to someone who had the privilege to live in a graduate school level educated home and go to a private, college prep school. It pains me to see the girl we all supported, housed, and rallied behind when she left her mom’s house to falsely claim the hardship of others for her own gain.
46. The anonymous email was only the beginning. People from the St. Louis area who knew Fierceton called Penn, identifying themselves by name and refuting Fierceton’s portrayal as a low-income, first generation student who grew up in foster care."

Mackenzie never portrayed herself as poor.

[Anonymous]

growing up poor** I should say

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

It was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. They got the same anonymous letter that Penn did. They did their own investigation, and believed she was no first generation as well as lying about the injuries she received which were not supported by the hospital records. She gets to keep her Penn B.A., but she's not going to be a Rhodes Scholar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this incident will prompt the Rhodes Scholar selection committee and others like them to reevaluate the essay process?

I know someone affiliated with the process who says each essay is better than the last when it comes to a personal sob story followed by extremely noble volunteerism. Academics aren’t the focus. Ethics aren’t considered. It’s poverty porn followed by overcoming adversity and giving back.

In short: none of the privileged or even average kids from Dcumlandia have a chance.

Explains many of the gleeful posts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe this incident will prompt the Rhodes Scholar selection committee and others like them to reevaluate the essay process?

I know someone affiliated with the process who says each essay is better than the last when it comes to a personal sob story followed by extremely noble volunteerism. Academics aren’t the focus. Ethics aren’t considered. It’s poverty porn followed by overcoming adversity and giving back.

In short: none of the privileged or even average kids from Dcumlandia have a chance.

why would an average kid have a chance at a Rhodes scholarship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

It was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. They got the same anonymous letter that Penn did. They did their own investigation, and believed she was no first generation as well as lying about the injuries she received which were not supported by the hospital records. She gets to keep her Penn B.A., but she's not going to be a Rhodes Scholar.

Except she is 1st generation because she does not have a legal guardian that attended college because her mother was stripped of that title and she has no legal guardian. So they are just butt hurt they got beat at their own game. She was truthful and her lawyer will get a huge settlement because of the slander.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

It was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. They got the same anonymous letter that Penn did. They did their own investigation, and believed she was no first generation as well as lying about the injuries she received which were not supported by the hospital records. She gets to keep her Penn B.A., but she's not going to be a Rhodes Scholar.

Hospitals don't keep a kid impatient that long for injuries that need to be exaggerated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

Penn also has this in their definition of 1st generation...

Penn First Plus, the school’s inclusivity initiative, broadens the definition of first-generation to include students who “have a strained or limited relationship with the person(s) in your family who hold(s) a bachelors degree.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

It was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. They got the same anonymous letter that Penn did. They did their own investigation, and believed she was no first generation as well as lying about the injuries she received which were not supported by the hospital records. She gets to keep her Penn B.A., but she's not going to be a Rhodes Scholar.

Except she is 1st generation because she does not have a legal guardian that attended college because her mother was stripped of that title and she has no legal guardian. So they are just butt hurt they got beat at their own game. She was truthful and her lawyer will get a huge settlement because of the slander.

The Rhodes Committee does not use that definition of first generation.

And no, she isn't going to get any huge settlement. Maybe they will settle for low five figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

It was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. They got the same anonymous letter that Penn did. They did their own investigation, and believed she was no first generation as well as lying about the injuries she received which were not supported by the hospital records. She gets to keep her Penn B.A., but she's not going to be a Rhodes Scholar.

Except she is 1st generation because she does not have a legal guardian that attended college because her mother was stripped of that title and she has no legal guardian. So they are just butt hurt they got beat at their own game. She was truthful and her lawyer will get a huge settlement because of the slander.

Does the lawsuit allege slander? I don't think so. And it was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. Based on their definition of first-gen, and well as the other discrepancies in her story that she couldn't explain.

[Anonymous]

I did not know what kind of f-d up mother works that hard to sabotage her daughter’s accomplishments but it is definitely not one she got any healthy nurturing from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

It was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. They got the same anonymous letter that Penn did. They did their own investigation, and believed she was no first generation as well as lying about the injuries she received which were not supported by the hospital records. She gets to keep her Penn B.A., but she's not going to be a Rhodes Scholar.

Except she is 1st generation because she does not have a legal guardian that attended college because her mother was stripped of that title and she has no legal guardian. So they are just butt hurt they got beat at their own game. She was truthful and her lawyer will get a huge settlement because of the slander.

Does the lawsuit allege slander? I don't think so. And it was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. Based on their definition of first-gen, and well as the other discrepancies in her story that she couldn't explain.

The lawsuit is against Penn. It will use the loss of the Rhodes scholarship as a measurable loss aka damages. You must show damages for a slander case. We will never know the whole story because Penn will need to settle out of court to not look like complete idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did not know what kind of f-d up mother works that hard to sabotage her daughter’s accomplishments but it is definitely not one she got any healthy nurturing from.

Her mother didn't send the letter, as has been established already by court filings. I'm beginning to think the pro-Fierceton posters are incapable of basic reading comprehension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recommend reading the article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. You have to register to read it, but it is free.

Her undergrad application says a lot more than that she was in foster care. However, there is also what she put on her graduate school app. According to the Chronicle's discussion of the Rhodes Trust's investigation...

"It zeroes in on a question in her master’s application: “Are you the first generation in your family to attend college?” To that, she answered “yes.” "

Under Penn's definition(s), she is. No one in her family pursued higher education at an *elite* institution, and she does not have a supportive relationship with any college graduate in her family. This is also in the same Chronicle article. Penn defines first gen insanely broadly so they can say things like "increased our pool of URM, FGLI students by 50%!" and then attacks a student for using their own definition.

To note: I disagree with Penn's definitions. I just don't think they should be able to use them when it makes them look good and abandon them when they want to punish someone.

It was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. They got the same anonymous letter that Penn did. They did their own investigation, and believed she was no first generation as well as lying about the injuries she received which were not supported by the hospital records. She gets to keep her Penn B.A., but she's not going to be a Rhodes Scholar.

Except she is 1st generation because she does not have a legal guardian that attended college because her mother was stripped of that title and she has no legal guardian. So they are just butt hurt they got beat at their own game. She was truthful and her lawyer will get a huge settlement because of the slander.

Does the lawsuit allege slander? I don't think so. And it was the Rhodes Committee that revoked the scholarship. Based on their definition of first-gen, and well as the other discrepancies in her story that she couldn't explain.

The lawsuit is against Penn. It will use the loss of the Rhodes scholarship as a measurable loss aka damages. You must show damages for a slander case. We will never know the whole story because Penn will need to settle out of court to not look like complete idiots.

?? But Penn didn't cause the loss of the scholarship. The article makes clear the Rhodes Committee got the same anonymous tip Penn did and made their own independent investigation and decision.