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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Penn did contact Rhodes and “slandered her” as well.

[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.

That answer brief from Penn isn't the answer of an entity that is worried about a potential loss. I think they'd be happy to take the case to trial. They may settle, but it would be for a nominal amount. You simply don't write an answer that long and precise if you don't have solid facts to back it all up.

I'm sorry, PP, because you seem a little delusional in your support of Fierceton (maybe you are a friend), but the facts don't look good for Fierceton's case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She did fail to send a severely injured child to the hospital. She’s a piece of work either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Penn did contact Rhodes and “slandered her” as well.

she's not alleging slander

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That answer brief from Penn isn't the answer of an entity that is worried about a potential loss. I think they'd be happy to take the case to trial. They may settle, but it would be for a nominal amount. You simply don't write an answer that long and precise if you don't have solid facts to back it all up.

I'm sorry, PP, because you seem a little delusional in your support of Fierceton (maybe you are a friend), but the facts don't look good for Fierceton's case.

Especially if credibility is an issue, which it always is.
I'm sympathetic to her because the colleges now place such emphasis on overcoming adversity - but she went a bit too far in some of her claims.
Ans she has no case at all unless Penn denies her the master's degree. She's keeping her BA. And Penn isn't the one who made the decision to revoke her Rhodes Scholarship -- that was the Rhodes Committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the big trial blog that someone linked above a plaintiff lawyer blog? It seems weirdly reported as compared to the much cleaner and more neutral story in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The big trial story is so over the top that it’s hard to credit it much.

I think the BigTrial guy has an axe to grind against the Inquirer. While the Inquirer involvement is interesting, it's like the fifth-string story here. I think his anger against the paper made his blog extra confusing.

[Anonymous]

there's a lot to find uneasy about this story but one thing that i find, well, very UMC elite educated white lady of mackenzie, is how spending senior year in foster care led her to giving interviews where she talks about "we" foster kids are disadvantaged -- using "we" over and over -- putting herself in the same boat as kids who'd been in the system their whole lives, when she'd just shown up to the group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That answer brief from Penn isn't the answer of an entity that is worried about a potential loss. I think they'd be happy to take the case to trial. They may settle, but it would be for a nominal amount. You simply don't write an answer that long and precise if you don't have solid facts to back it all up.

I'm sorry, PP, because you seem a little delusional in your support of Fierceton (maybe you are a friend), but the facts don't look good for Fierceton's case.

I’m sorry but it is common practice for lawyers at large wealth institutions to try to overwhelm a lawyer in paperwork. They hope the lawyer does not have enough time/money to continue with the case and will drop it. It’s very common but now that it’s all over the paper they will get some hot shot pro-bono lawyers to help and Penn will again be beat at their own game.

I don’t know or care for the student, whatever her name is. What I do care is that schools like Penn look for severely damaged individuals to hold up their social justice warrior image but when it get messy they toss them like an old Starbucks cup instead of interceding and getting them help.

They have done this to rape victims for years… now it’s foster kids.

I hope they get sued for a few million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there's a lot to find uneasy about this story but one thing that i find, well, very UMC elite educated white lady of mackenzie, is how spending senior year in foster care led her to giving interviews where she talks about "we" foster kids are disadvantaged -- using "we" over and over -- putting herself in the same boat as kids who'd been in the system their whole lives, when she'd just shown up to the group.

Actually she says in one article that since she had an education she was more privileged and that these other kids are just lost. She talks about her case worker never calling or meeting with her and she emailed her representative to complain.

Every article will frame it how they want to.

You have clearly never had an article written about you or something you knew about intimately. Every article has its own slant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She did fail to send a severely injured child to the hospital. She’s a piece of work either way.

It seems likely the mother a piece of work (just because of the year in foster care), but the extend of Fierceton's injuries seems to be under significant debate. Fierceton was able to drive herself to school the next day, which does not seem to be a disputed fact.

Penn has probably subpoenaed the hospital for the records by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the big trial blog that someone linked above a plaintiff lawyer blog? It seems weirdly reported as compared to the much cleaner and more neutral story in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The big trial story is so over the top that it’s hard to credit it much.

I think the BigTrial guy has an axe to grind against the Inquirer. While the Inquirer involvement is interesting, it's like the fifth-string story here. I think his anger against the paper made his blog extra confusing.

Yeah, that blog post was weird. Maybe you are right. It is a little bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That answer brief from Penn isn't the answer of an entity that is worried about a potential loss. I think they'd be happy to take the case to trial. They may settle, but it would be for a nominal amount. You simply don't write an answer that long and precise if you don't have solid facts to back it all up.

I'm sorry, PP, because you seem a little delusional in your support of Fierceton (maybe you are a friend), but the facts don't look good for Fierceton's case.

I’m sorry but it is common practice for lawyers at large wealth institutions to try to overwhelm a lawyer in paperwork. They hope the lawyer does not have enough time/money to continue with the case and will drop it. It’s very common but now that it’s all over the paper they will get some hot shot pro-bono lawyers to help and Penn will again be beat at their own game.

I don’t know or care for the student, whatever her name is. What I do care is that schools like Penn look for severely damaged individuals to hold up their social justice warrior image but when it get messy they toss them like an old Starbucks cup instead of interceding and getting them help.

They have done this to rape victims for years… now it’s foster kids.

I hope they get sued for a few million.

It is clear as day you know nothing about litigation.

[Anonymous]

There is of course no arguing with folks who think this woman is a victim of the unfair colleges.
My thoughts: the wording of UPenn is so vague about what qualifies that their case is rather weak. However, in the “college admissions” scandal a young man at Georgetown U had 3 years of paid for schooling voided. That’s $240K. So Penn could say something like “honor code violation” or something else and void her degree. Schools have a lot of power in that decision. And UPenn has a strict charter.
The Rhodes Scholarship program has another much stricter set of standards. That’s over and she’s out.
In both cases it’s very unfair to other students who didn’t get in/ get scholarships who didn’t lie and cheat to get admissions and FA.
As for Mackenzie herself I believe mental illness or sociopathic tendencies is behind ALL of this behavior. Mental illness does unfortunately tend to flair up in mid teens and of course initially “the mother is to blame” before the true facts come out. Hospitals do not keep patients with a few minor bruises for three weeks. She was a minor. They protected her reputation. Perhaps she got some medication that helped her. Or perhaps she’s a manipulative liar. Who knows. But her story contains many false hoods and money is involved. Penn is an expensive school.
She went too far and it caught up with her.
Signed, psych nurse.

[Anonymous]

Sadly, my kids have fallen down those padded steps many times. The result: bruised Fanny and a bruised arm. I didn’t take them to the ER because … no serious injury. But my kids are not mentally ill.

[Anonymous]

I do wonder about the hospital story -- she was so injured she had to stay for 3 weeks, but was able to drive herself to school? And she was "caked" in blood, yet the school didn't do anything until she passed out?