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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm team sketch, based on the details out there so far. Also mentally filtering all the news articles, which always slant in some way, and don't always capture the full "truth" of any situation, no matter who it being written about. Mackenzie was a top student, an athlete, supposed to be 5'10" (that's tall), class president, driven, fully privileged and had strong conflicts with the mom. Her father is or was an actor. She obviously has some of mom's academically driven characteristics. What about the dad's?

Scenario: Something flared up with the mom & kid goes ballistic. Kid decides she'll show her. She's got it all covered & doesn't need a damn thing from mom, ever again. And basically, that was accomplished. Until she took it too far & got caught.

Yeah, that fairy tale... or both the mom and kid are sociopaths.

[Anonymous]

I'm Team Sketch too, but I doubt the daughter orchestrated the whole thing with the Ivy League and Rhodes Scholarships in mind. She seems like a world class manipulator and she clearly painted a false picture of a childhood spent in foster care etc. But maybe over time she came to believe her own hype?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm Team Sketch too, but I doubt the daughter orchestrated the whole thing with the Ivy League and Rhodes Scholarships in mind. She seems like a world class manipulator and she clearly painted a false picture of a childhood spent in foster care etc. But maybe over time she came to believe her own hype?

I think what happened was her faculty advisors believed her hype. It was actually recommendation letters that said in so many words that she “had grown up in foster care.” Her own essay was much more careful. Exaggerated and misleading, parts likely fabricated, but no provable lies. And she thought it was better to apply for the Rhodes than to tell her advisors the truth. (She was actually living with one of them during the spring of 2020 and then the Rhodes application cycle; she moved in because the dorms closed because of the pandemic.) After all, the odds of winning the Rhodes are extremely small. Penn has only had 30 winners in 120 years.

And then she won, and the whole thing fell apart.

[Anonymous]

I love all of you -- who TOTALLY aren't her or adjacent to her -- are giving her the benefit of the doubt, yet everyone in her orbit thought she was some foster kid from nothing? How? Because she has been using this false narrative for years to exploit and manipulate everyone around her! Obviously.

[Anonymous]

I knew a bullsh*t artist peer who fabricated his entire life and won that Gates scholarship thing. Full ride through undergrad. This is not as uncommon as some of you think.

[Anonymous]

This is about a lawsuit. She will have to prove that the university defamed her, that it publicized this defamation, that it acted with malice, and that she suffered damages as a result of their actions. Unless she has a witness who can attest to the university’s nefarious plot, it’s going to be hard to prove her case

[Anonymous]

According to the response, her primary diagnosis at the hospital was seizure disorder.

So what if she drives herself to school, has a seizure (and any blood on her head came from the seizure at school) and then says it's because her mom pushed her down the stairs the day before?

I had a friend who was diagnosed with epilepsy around the same age and she spent weeks in the hospital while getting diagnosed and getting medications to stabilize her.

Her lawsuit against Penn was based on a seizure.

[Anonymous]

Pg 86 says she was hospitalized 22 days, primary diagnosis was seizures of unknown cause.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21174416-penn-answer

[Anonymous]

The wording is careful: "apparent seizure" and "seizures of unknown cause."

Half a paycheck says that was pseudoseizures, and that this is nonepileptic in origin. With video EEG as inpatient, they would have been able to document something if real.

And there's some underlying reason that the committee backed away from her story with great alacrity. No way she will pursue this, if she has any smarts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wording is careful: "apparent seizure" and "seizures of unknown cause."

Half a paycheck says that was pseudoseizures, and that this is nonepileptic in origin. With video EEG as inpatient, they would have been able to document something if real.

And there's some underlying reason that the committee backed away from her story with great alacrity. No way she will pursue this, if she has any smarts.

She is pursuing it, however. I suspect that she fervently believes her own reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wording is careful: "apparent seizure" and "seizures of unknown cause."

Half a paycheck says that was pseudoseizures, and that this is nonepileptic in origin. With video EEG as inpatient, they would have been able to document something if real.

And there's some underlying reason that the committee backed away from her story with great alacrity. No way she will pursue this, if she has any smarts.

She is pursuing it, however. I suspect that she fervently believes her own reality.

That lawyer just wants to make sure he gets paid. One way or another.

[Anonymous]

When there is a patient with a pseudo seizure we make it clear in the note and diagnosis. How do you all make sense of the fact that she’s brilliant? Does that negate everything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When there is a patient with a pseudo seizure we make it clear in the note and diagnosis. How do you all make sense of the fact that she’s brilliant? Does that negate everything?

She is brilliant. I'll allow that. And a con artist. Brains without integrity is a very dangerous combination.

[Anonymous]

except she was too clever by half. I do wonder if Oxford is going to take her now? And whatever happened to Jackie, the big liar from U.Va.? I suppose she's just gone on with her life now like nothing ever happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When there is a patient with a pseudo seizure we make it clear in the note and diagnosis. How do you all make sense of the fact that she’s brilliant? Does that negate everything?

She is brilliant. I'll allow that. And a con artist. Brains without integrity is a very dangerous combination.

This!