Another Black Eye for Penn

[Anonymous]

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).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By the way, Jeff has noted in Website Feedback that this thread has a person (or persons) responding to multiple posts in succession, if that wasn't clear.

Someone is motivated to post over and over again here. It's context for interpreting what is going on in the thread.

But Jeff quite clearly said there was no sock puppeting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read the article and still do not understand why her MSW is being withheld? At the simplest level - is it a the claim of code of conduct violation because she misrepresented herself?

Has Penn changed their definition of first generation?

The MSW is clearly being withheld to blackmail her. Penn says that they will grant the degree once she writes a letter of apology to the university and takes full responsibility for misrepresenting herself. Huh? If they had any serious concerns about ethical or character issues, how would such a letter mitigate that? Clearly what Penn wants is for her to admit to their allegations to get them off the hook for their role in what happened.

Penn seems to use multiple definitions of first gen depending on what’s convenient to them. But those definitions are frankly irrelevant. Mackenzie applied to Penn via Questbridge, who approved her application. The Director of Questbridge recently reviewed her original application and reaffirmed that it was legitimate. Penn’s definition is irrelevant because it was the Questbridge process which legitimized her as first gen & low income. Penn is a participating institution in Questbridge and accepts their applications. Too late for them to substitute any other definition.

Penn also threatened to rescind her bachelor’s degree and report her to federal prosecutor’s at the US Attorney’s Office based on her application for federal loans. Yet as the article explains, she truthfully answered the question that qualified her on the federal loan application:

“At any time since you turned 13, we’re both your parents deceased, we’re you in foster care, or we’re you a dependent or ward of the court?”

To this question, Mackenzie answered “yes”.

That was the right answer. Who of us in her shoes would have answered any differently. Yet Penn decided to refer her for federal prosecution?! Clearly they had an agenda here. They should be prosecuted for blackmail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, Jeff has noted in Website Feedback that this thread has a person (or persons) responding to multiple posts in succession, if that wasn't clear.

Someone is motivated to post over and over again here. It's context for interpreting what is going on in the thread.

But Jeff quite clearly said there was no sock puppeting.

Sure. Nobody said there was.

But there is also someone (or more than one) responding to multiple posts without identifying themselves as the same poster, posting multiple times. So that's good to have clear.

[Anonymous]

All of her excuses remind me of guilty criminals who’s been in prison for 10 20 30 years and cook up all these emotional excuses and alibis to “prove” they’re innocent. The writer is either a total gullible moron or set out with an agenda.

The most laughable excuse is why she changed her last name. It was OBVIOUSLY to dupe Rhodes, so nobody could google her and her rich mom.

If this was a Black or white male, they’d throw this schemer in jail. But because she’s is a privileged cute rich white girl, she continues lying and freeloading and even crashes at female teachers’ homes and mooches grad school money from them.

[Anonymous]

I think this story is not that well done. I also think Penn is a mess. Suicide rates are still so high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, Jeff has noted in Website Feedback that this thread has a person (or persons) responding to multiple posts in succession, if that wasn't clear.

Someone is motivated to post over and over again here. It's context for interpreting what is going on in the thread.

But Jeff quite clearly said there was no sock puppeting.

Sure. Nobody said there was.

But there is also someone (or more than one) responding to multiple posts without identifying themselves as the same poster, posting multiple times. So that's good to have clear.

Sure you (or the questioner). You asked if there was dock-purporting. Jeff said there wasn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of her excuses remind me of guilty criminals who’s been in prison for 10 20 30 years and cook up all these emotional excuses and alibis to “prove” they’re innocent. The writer is either a total gullible moron or set out with an agenda.

The most laughable excuse is why she changed her last name. It was OBVIOUSLY to dupe Rhodes, so nobody could google her and her rich mom.

If this was a Black or white male, they’d throw this schemer in jail. But because she’s is a privileged cute rich white girl, she continues lying and freeloading and even crashes at female teachers’ homes and mooches grad school money from them.

The New Yorker famously has the most rigorous fact-checking around, FYI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, Jeff has noted in Website Feedback that this thread has a person (or persons) responding to multiple posts in succession, if that wasn't clear.

Someone is motivated to post over and over again here. It's context for interpreting what is going on in the thread.

But Jeff quite clearly said there was no sock puppeting.

Sure. Nobody said there was.

But there is also someone (or more than one) responding to multiple posts without identifying themselves as the same poster, posting multiple times. So that's good to have clear.

Sure you (or the questioner). You asked if there was dock-purporting. Jeff said there wasn’t.

You think asking a question is the same as making a claim? That would explain a lot, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the article and still do not understand why her MSW is being withheld? At the simplest level - is it a the claim of code of conduct violation because she misrepresented herself?

Has Penn changed their definition of first generation?

The MSW is clearly being withheld to blackmail her. Penn says that they will grant the degree once she writes a letter of apology to the university and takes full responsibility for misrepresenting herself. Huh? If they had any serious concerns about ethical or character issues, how would such a letter mitigate that? Clearly what Penn wants is for her to admit to their allegations to get them off the hook for their role in what happened.

Penn seems to use multiple definitions of first gen depending on what’s convenient to them. But those definitions are frankly irrelevant. Mackenzie applied to Penn via Questbridge, who approved her application. The Director of Questbridge recently reviewed her original application and reaffirmed that it was legitimate. Penn’s definition is irrelevant because it was the Questbridge process which legitimized her as first gen & low income. Penn is a participating institution in Questbridge and accepts their applications. Too late for them to substitute any other definition.

Penn also threatened to rescind her bachelor’s degree and report her to federal prosecutor’s at the US Attorney’s Office based on her application for federal loans. Yet as the article explains, she truthfully answered the question that qualified her on the federal loan application:

“At any time since you turned 13, we’re both your parents deceased, we’re you in foster care, or we’re you a dependent or ward of the court?”

To this question, Mackenzie answered “yes”.

That was the right answer. Who of us in her shoes would have answered any differently. Yet Penn decided to refer her for federal prosecution?! Clearly they had an agenda here. They should be prosecuted for blackmail.

I completely agree with the bolded and think it’s really damning for Penn. They don’t care about the supposed integrity of the process, they just want her to exonerate them.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, Jeff has noted in Website Feedback that this thread has a person (or persons) responding to multiple posts in succession, if that wasn't clear.

Someone is motivated to post over and over again here. It's context for interpreting what is going on in the thread.

But Jeff quite clearly said there was no sock puppeting.

Sure. Nobody said there was.

But there is also someone (or more than one) responding to multiple posts without identifying themselves as the same poster, posting multiple times. So that's good to have clear.

Sure you (or the questioner). You asked if there was dock-purporting. Jeff said there wasn’t.

You think asking a question is the same as making a claim? That would explain a lot, actually.

Oof! Another hair splitter who is on here just to argue so they can feel superior. Jeff was asked if there was sock-puppeting and he said no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a first gen college kid (who only got loans btw) I never understood the claim that she lied about that. You are considered first gen if you do not have college educated parents helping you. That was clearly her situation. It is meant to cast a wide net. I found penn’s actions horrendous before the New Yorker article, and wasn’t at all surprised at what they uncovered. I hope she sues the heck out of penn. All these varsity blue kids and you go after the young woman getting her degree in social work who spent weeks in the hospital after her mother’s care? They need to clean house in their legal dept.

Her mother was a doctor…whether they actually “helped” is irrelevant.

It is actually relevant. What's with the ax to grind with this girl?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. Yeah, it's tedious. But people get to decide that they want to talk about things other people find tedious, or what have you, at least within the boundaries of the site.

For reference:

UMC suburban college student lied about background to become prestigious Rhodes Scholar
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1028411.page
- started 1/11/2022
- locked after 75 pages