Another Black Eye for Penn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Penn is just wrong. There is no way around that First Gen means her even by its definition. Colleges suck at any legal or disciple issues. If you have a child involved at all, lawyer up with lawyers they can't screw with. If you don't have the money to do that you will be screwed.

No. Go back and read. The first fraudulent move was Questbridge which supported her application as a a first-gen. That was her first ac t of fraud.

What fraud? Did you read both Questbridge’s and Penn’s definition of first gen?

Can you not read? The lies in the application ! Like the sister!

Good lord. Learn to read before responding. The comment was “The first fraudulent move was Questbridge which supported her application as a a first-gen. That was her first act of fraud.” The claim is about her being a fraud based on first gem. That has nothing to do with the sister.

The fact she lied I. The Questbridge application about the sister -and numerous other factors -is the beginning of many acts of fraud.

Where are the statements from her father and sister saying she doesn’t provide financial support for the sister?

I’m the pleadings. She lied about supporting a sister.

Her father and sister confirmed she does not any provide financial support?

Has the initial PP found the statements from the father and sister that shows Mackenzie provides no support for her sister? There was such a flurry of activity yesterday claiming that she lied about the sister but it immediately stopped when they couldn’t provide the proof from the father and sister.

It's on her to support her claim, not others. And she is on record saying she is uncertain where the $6000 came from, which is pretty bizarre.

[Anonymous]

I think she suffers from mental illness. Yes she is smart but profs are under a certain pressure to help the first gen students.
Her background viewed differently looks like bright kid with increasing mental illness.
The Rhodes is completely over. There’s no changing that. A brilliant schemer would know when to fold, lay low and let Penn issue the degree quietly. Instead it seemed she believes her own lies and escalates. The more she escalates the worse she looks. Her story doesn’t hold up under real legal scrutiny.
It’s also very unfair to other qualified students who applied and DIDN’T receive a $300k full ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Penn is just wrong. There is no way around that First Gen means her even by its definition. Colleges suck at any legal or disciple issues. If you have a child involved at all, lawyer up with lawyers they can't screw with. If you don't have the money to do that you will be screwed.

No. Go back and read. The first fraudulent move was Questbridge which supported her application as a a first-gen. That was her first ac t of fraud.

What fraud? Did you read both Questbridge’s and Penn’s definition of first gen?

Can you not read? The lies in the application ! Like the sister!

Good lord. Learn to read before responding. The comment was “The first fraudulent move was Questbridge which supported her application as a a first-gen. That was her first act of fraud.” The claim is about her being a fraud based on first gem. That has nothing to do with the sister.

The fact she lied I. The Questbridge application about the sister -and numerous other factors -is the beginning of many acts of fraud.

Where are the statements from her father and sister saying she doesn’t provide financial support for the sister?

I’m the pleadings. She lied about supporting a sister.

Her father and sister confirmed she does not any provide financial support?

Has the initial PP found the statements from the father and sister that shows Mackenzie provides no support for her sister? There was such a flurry of activity yesterday claiming that she lied about the sister but it immediately stopped when they couldn’t provide the proof from the father and sister.

It's on her to support her claim, not others. And she is on record saying she is uncertain where the $6000 came from, which is pretty bizarre.

Nope. It’s on the PP who keeps posting that as a claim of fraud. There’s no evidence she has not provided some support for her sister.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She was on her own and there was no box for “abused kid with no family”.

The abusive mom is the problem here. People should be hating on her.

She was on TV and fully cooperated with PR deceiving the public. She also lied on multiple applications about supporting her sister.

That said, I agree her mother is at fault. Pointing out her very existence would have nipped this in the bud.

And UPenn is also at fault. They should have checked more carefully into her story. They were too eager for diversity boxes to be checked.

The hospital thing is pretty damning. You know Mackenzie would have dragged out any evidence in her favor long ago. It was a psychiatric hold and frankly it makes perfect sense.

Whatever. She was an abused child trying to forge a new life. Maybe she made a error here or there.

People so eager to sh1t on her need to look in the mirror.

She's mentally ill, true, not completely unable to be responsible for her actions.

Stop contributing to her abuse.

She should stop suing other people for the consequences of her own actions. Nobody would care otherwise.

More victim blaming. Shame on you.

+1

[Anonymous]

My first job was working with abused kids and the mom here is textbook, especially how she attacked her education at Penn. UPenn should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Why do weirdos keep using “kid” to describe this unemployed 25 year old professional freeloader?

[Anonymous]

Nobody is buying this, you can stop spamming the forum. The rich spoiled layabout needs to get off Twitter and DCUM and go get a real job. Imagine the gall to pretend to be poor kid and you’ve never worked a day in your life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Penn is just wrong. There is no way around that First Gen means her even by its definition. Colleges suck at any legal or disciple issues. If you have a child involved at all, lawyer up with lawyers they can't screw with. If you don't have the money to do that you will be screwed.

No. Go back and read. The first fraudulent move was Questbridge which supported her application as a a first-gen. That was her first ac t of fraud.

What fraud? Did you read both Questbridge’s and Penn’s definition of first gen?

Can you not read? The lies in the application ! Like the sister!

Good lord. Learn to read before responding. The comment was “The first fraudulent move was Questbridge which supported her application as a a first-gen. That was her first act of fraud.” The claim is about her being a fraud based on first gem. That has nothing to do with the sister.

The fact she lied I. The Questbridge application about the sister -and numerous other factors -is the beginning of many acts of fraud.

Where are the statements from her father and sister saying she doesn’t provide financial support for the sister?

I’m the pleadings. She lied about supporting a sister.

Her father and sister confirmed she does not any provide financial support?

Has the initial PP found the statements from the father and sister that shows Mackenzie provides no support for her sister? There was such a flurry of activity yesterday claiming that she lied about the sister but it immediately stopped when they couldn’t provide the proof from the father and sister.

It's on her to support her claim, not others. And she is on record saying she is uncertain where the $6000 came from, which is pretty bizarre.

Nope. It’s on the PP who keeps posting that as a claim of fraud. There’s no evidence she has not provided some support for her sister.

Just to be clear -- you are asking people to prove a negative. Is that right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please run that long post through some identification software and compare it to some of Mackenzie's previous writing?

Hey loser, you do it. This story reminds me of Monica Lewinsky. Essentially a kid held to a higher standard than the adults and institutions around her. And we know how well that story aged. It’s widely accepted now that Lewinsky was the victim of a higher coordinated bully campaign. Shameful. And that goes to those posting here relentlessly trying to deflect blame away from where it is deserved—her diabolical mother, her mother’s abusive boyfriend, the legal system, UPenn.

I'm the pp who said that I don't think Mackenzie deserves all the blame. She had a long psychiatric hospitalization. She definitely came from a dysfunctional family.
This doesn't excuse her from manipulating the system, but it doesn't mean that she was the victim in every possible way imaginable either.

The real truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

DP. Oh, agreed.

And I also don't want someone with that history -- and who is still doubling down and attacking others -- getting any support for moving into politics or being licensed to work over vulnerable people. She needs support for dealing with her history and damage. Her mother may well need to address her own issues, too.

But in no way does any of this make her either ready or somehow deserving of power or responsibility. She needs help.

She definitely needs help. Our society tends to like to paint people as angels or monsters. She can be sick and need kindness, not necessarily for the reasons she claims to need them, but for other reasons.

Frankly it's kind of tragic that someone so intelligent has managed to ruin their life like this at the age of 25. It wouldn't surprise me if they were familial issues contributing as well. This would not have gotten this far if her mother had spoken up way earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is buying this, you can stop spamming the forum. The rich spoiled layabout needs to get off Twitter and DCUM and go get a real job. Imagine the gall to pretend to be poor kid and you’ve never worked a day in your life.

I get that you're upset that Bernie wasn't able to make your student loans just go away but your rage is misdirected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do weirdos keep using “kid” to describe this unemployed 25 year old professional freeloader?

How old was she when she went into foster care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please run that long post through some identification software and compare it to some of Mackenzie's previous writing?

Hey loser, you do it. This story reminds me of Monica Lewinsky. Essentially a kid held to a higher standard than the adults and institutions around her. And we know how well that story aged. It’s widely accepted now that Lewinsky was the victim of a higher coordinated bully campaign. Shameful. And that goes to those posting here relentlessly trying to deflect blame away from where it is deserved—her diabolical mother, her mother’s abusive boyfriend, the legal system, UPenn.

I'm the pp who said that I don't think Mackenzie deserves all the blame. She had a long psychiatric hospitalization. She definitely came from a dysfunctional family.
This doesn't excuse her from manipulating the system, but it doesn't mean that she was the victim in every possible way imaginable either.

The real truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

DP. Oh, agreed.

And I also don't want someone with that history -- and who is still doubling down and attacking others -- getting any support for moving into politics or being licensed to work over vulnerable people. She needs support for dealing with her history and damage. Her mother may well need to address her own issues, too.

But in no way does any of this make her either ready or somehow deserving of power or responsibility. She needs help.

She definitely needs help. Our society tends to like to paint people as angels or monsters. She can be sick and need kindness, not necessarily for the reasons she claims to need them, but for other reasons.

Frankly it's kind of tragic that someone so intelligent has managed to ruin their life like this at the age of 25. It wouldn't surprise me if they were familial issues contributing as well. This would not have gotten this far if her mother had spoken up way earlier.

Yeah. I don't have any problem believing there are few (if any) healthy people in this story. That includes the Penn profs who have been supporting her, as much as the mother.

I don't think we need to demonize someone to acknowledge that they did not qualify for a position that they achieved by untruthful means. You don't even have to "prove" it was deliberate to acknowledge that. I do think some posters here elide the two -- as if saying she shouldn't have X means you are either demonizing her, or that you are saying she was evil. But I think they think eliding it makes their argument stronger, somehow.

Nope. Just not qualified for it, by the specific qualifications of entry.

[Anonymous]

This lady just got a dedicated enemy. Otherwise, she would have been just another regular Rhode scholar. Never believed their stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is buying this, you can stop spamming the forum. The rich spoiled layabout needs to get off Twitter and DCUM and go get a real job. Imagine the gall to pretend to be poor kid and you’ve never worked a day in your life.

Yes, because graduating with honors and supporting yourself through college isn't work?

Turns out that scared teenager writing in her journal was 100% right. People will often side with the abusers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please run that long post through some identification software and compare it to some of Mackenzie's previous writing?

Hey loser, you do it. This story reminds me of Monica Lewinsky. Essentially a kid held to a higher standard than the adults and institutions around her. And we know how well that story aged. It’s widely accepted now that Lewinsky was the victim of a higher coordinated bully campaign. Shameful. And that goes to those posting here relentlessly trying to deflect blame away from where it is deserved—her diabolical mother, her mother’s abusive boyfriend, the legal system, UPenn.

I'm the pp who said that I don't think Mackenzie deserves all the blame. She had a long psychiatric hospitalization. She definitely came from a dysfunctional family.
This doesn't excuse her from manipulating the system, but it doesn't mean that she was the victim in every possible way imaginable either.

The real truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

DP. Oh, agreed.

And I also don't want someone with that history -- and who is still doubling down and attacking others -- getting any support for moving into politics or being licensed to work over vulnerable people. She needs support for dealing with her history and damage. Her mother may well need to address her own issues, too.

But in no way does any of this make her either ready or somehow deserving of power or responsibility. She needs help.

She definitely needs help. Our society tends to like to paint people as angels or monsters. She can be sick and need kindness, not necessarily for the reasons she claims to need them, but for other reasons.

Frankly it's kind of tragic that someone so intelligent has managed to ruin their life like this at the age of 25. It wouldn't surprise me if they were familial issues contributing as well. This would not have gotten this far if her mother had spoken up way earlier.

Yeah. I don't have any problem believing there are few (if any) healthy people in this story. That includes the Penn profs who have been supporting her, as much as the mother.

I don't think we need to demonize someone to acknowledge that they did not qualify for a position that they achieved by untruthful means. You don't even have to "prove" it was deliberate to acknowledge that. I do think some posters here elide the two -- as if saying she shouldn't have X means you are either demonizing her, or that you are saying she was evil. But I think they think eliding it makes their argument stronger, somehow.

Nope. Just not qualified for it, by the specific qualifications of entry.

Except she was. By Penn and Questbridge’s very definitions. There’s no disputing that.