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:

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.

You are a broken record circling back to fake inflated grades. Nobody cares about a rich spoiled brat’s As and Bs at a ritzy day school or As and Bs in a soft major at Penn CAS. Or the soft master’s. No mention of standardized test scores because they are dire, which exposes her for the midwit leech she is.

WTF is wrong with you?

"Why do you care so much?" Again, the closed circle of response.

You are not allowed to question the story of Mackenzie Fierceton.

No, the question was about you. WTF is wrong with you?

Not me, DP. But given your response is to double-down on the same, I guess it does not matter.

You may want to think about why you have so much hate for this girl. It’s fcked up.

She is not a girl. She’s a 25 year old freeloader.

If you define "freeloader" as someone who works hard to obtain degrees in helping professions, then I guess I'm good with the fact that she is a "freeloader".

Look, one thing I think we should all be able to agree on is that schools should not be in the habit of selling degrees. Either you earn the degree or you don't. The thing that separates a school like Penn from a school like DeVry should not simply be the cost of the education -- the idea is that Penn is serving as a gatekeeper for very qualified candidates, to offer a higher caliber of education by vetting the students participating.

And there is ZERO accusation that Mackenzie doesn't belong in that group. Everything we know from her classmates and professors at Penn was that she was not only well qualified to be there but above-average. There is zero evidence that Penn made a mistake in admitting her. The only question people seem to have is whether she "deserved" the scholarship she received.

But I think one reason you see many of us from poor and working class backgrounds defending her is that we understand that "ability to pay" is so often used as a proxy for "can do the work." Mackenzie and a huge leg up on most of us because she is from a privileged background and went to a prep school. But the thing we have in common is that like her, we could not "afford to pay." Mackenzie is evidence that these things shouldn't be linked. Seeing Penn and others turn on her simply because of the money, even though there is no evidence that she faked her academic or personal qualifications for admission. By all accounts she deserved to be there. She did the work.

So what exactly did she steel? What did she "freeload"? Not her education -- she earned that. The only accusation is that she fraudulently obtained *access* to her education. But a lot of us think the fact that schools gatekeeper access based on ability to pay is a joke anyway. Schools like Penn want to present themselves as a public good (a non profit institution) who simply education the best and the brightest. Well if that's true, what exactly is the issue. Mackenzie was bright and successful. Someone else paid for her education, but she earned it. Be specific about what it is you think she stole.

+1 Working class background with a Ph.D. here. I also had a dangerous parent. I have a lot of empathy for Mackenzie. It's tough when you start processing your trauma and trying to construct a narrative of your life. I can understand how she misrepresented some specifics when telling her story in a way that made sense to evaluators and got her what she needed. I told a significant lie in order to be able to pay for my last year of college. I've also seen universities behave badly both when I was a student and when I worked in academia.

+1

A friend of mine from college basically pretended she was interested in a specific area of study that she had zero actual interest in, in order to get a scholarship that was necessary for her to attend. She kept that as her major for two years as required by the scholarship while pursuing coursework in her actual interest area, then switched majors before junior year when she qualified for a different scholarship based on grades. Was this a little shady? Sure, she really never had any interesting that original interest area. Do I think she didn't "deserve" to be at the school? Of course not, her approach was ingenious and think how much faith she had to have in herself to trust she'd be able to pull the high GPA to qualify for that upperclassman scholarship while essentially pursuing two fields of study, including one that was not a true area of interest in her. I admired her. You have to be willing to do stuff like that to succeed in this world. It's interesting that when a poor kid does it, she's a conman. When a rich kid does it, he's smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So she pathologically lied to Rhodes AND to reporters after she won AND gleefully retweeted the viral articles full of known falsehoods?

But she’s blaming the mom, et al. for dropping a dime ON HER LIES?

Wow just wow. Privileged rich white brat. Nobody but a rich white woman has this sort of audacity.

I actually blame the mother for letting it get this far. How did she not speak up?

[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: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.

You are a broken record circling back to fake inflated grades. Nobody cares about a rich spoiled brat’s As and Bs at a ritzy day school or As and Bs in a soft major at Penn CAS. Or the soft master’s. No mention of standardized test scores because they are dire, which exposes her for the midwit leech she is.

WTF is wrong with you?

"Why do you care so much?" Again, the closed circle of response.

You are not allowed to question the story of Mackenzie Fierceton.

No, the question was about you. WTF is wrong with you?

Not me, DP. But given your response is to double-down on the same, I guess it does not matter.

You may want to think about why you have so much hate for this girl. It’s fcked up.

She is not a girl. She’s a 25 year old freeloader.

If you define "freeloader" as someone who works hard to obtain degrees in helping professions, then I guess I'm good with the fact that she is a "freeloader".

Look, one thing I think we should all be able to agree on is that schools should not be in the habit of selling degrees. Either you earn the degree or you don't. The thing that separates a school like Penn from a school like DeVry should not simply be the cost of the education -- the idea is that Penn is serving as a gatekeeper for very qualified candidates, to offer a higher caliber of education by vetting the students participating.

And there is ZERO accusation that Mackenzie doesn't belong in that group. Everything we know from her classmates and professors at Penn was that she was not only well qualified to be there but above-average. There is zero evidence that Penn made a mistake in admitting her. The only question people seem to have is whether she "deserved" the scholarship she received.

But I think one reason you see many of us from poor and working class backgrounds defending her is that we understand that "ability to pay" is so often used as a proxy for "can do the work." Mackenzie and a huge leg up on most of us because she is from a privileged background and went to a prep school. But the thing we have in common is that like her, we could not "afford to pay." Mackenzie is evidence that these things shouldn't be linked. Seeing Penn and others turn on her simply because of the money, even though there is no evidence that she faked her academic or personal qualifications for admission. By all accounts she deserved to be there. She did the work.

So what exactly did she steel? What did she "freeload"? Not her education -- she earned that. The only accusation is that she fraudulently obtained *access* to her education. But a lot of us think the fact that schools gatekeeper access based on ability to pay is a joke anyway. Schools like Penn want to present themselves as a public good (a non profit institution) who simply education the best and the brightest. Well if that's true, what exactly is the issue. Mackenzie was bright and successful. Someone else paid for her education, but she earned it. Be specific about what it is you think she stole.

+1 Working class background with a Ph.D. here. I also had a dangerous parent. I have a lot of empathy for Mackenzie. It's tough when you start processing your trauma and trying to construct a narrative of your life. I can understand how she misrepresented some specifics when telling her story in a way that made sense to evaluators and got her what she needed. I told a significant lie in order to be able to pay for my last year of college. I've also seen universities behave badly both when I was a student and when I worked in academia.

+1

For context, because of all the accusations of trolling, I’m one of the PPs who has been critical of Fierceton’s DCUM supporters (because of their absolute unwillingness to be honest about the systemic racism on display in this case and how Fierceton is benefiting from that systemic racism). But I agree with all of this.

I am the poster who just word vomited her horror at this thread all over the last page. I was not referring to you, although I am wondering why you have chosen this case upon which to plant your flag in the mountain. I agree there is systemic racism in this country and that McKenzie benefits from being white. But there is no black student here to compare her with. For sure, there are invisible black students in this tale who have not gotten the attention she has, but McKenzie herself has not done anything racist that we know of. Arguably, she put herself in a very vulnerable position with the school in order to help a black family get justice for a wrongful death. Why is her privilege relevant here? She is wronged. The point you seem to want to make so vociferously is that if she was black she would have been MORE wronged. Which sure, ok, I agree, she likely would have been more wronged and more mistreated if she were black. But it seems to me like the wrong part of the story to focus on. This is about one girl, who was severely abused, and her path through a system that failed her at multiple levels. Who is using her privilege to put herself on display for all the harpies in this thread to pick apart to shine a light on those failures who fail people with much smaller microphones.

As for the poster saying her professors are creepy...I don't even know what to say to you. When you are from a wealthy family and in a vulnerable situation, your teachers are frequently the only people you trust. She has found a makeshift family in educators, a group of people she likely has deep trust for, as her teachers at her prep school were the ones who sounded the alarm and looked out for her and who she reached out to in her darkest moment. When you have no one else to help you, and someone reaches out, if you can, you take their hand.

[Anonymous]

I think the mother was happy her daughter was being successful and didn't want to get in her way. Otherwise she has to be incredibly checked out not to have intervened.
"Mackenzie, if you don't stop lying to reporters, I will tell them your hospitalization was really a psychiatric hold"

I agree with Mackenzie. Either way she a terrible parent.

[Anonymous]

I'm absolutely sickened by this thread and hope it's just one person with an axe to grind hate posting against this woman.

[Anonymous]

Why don’t we just let this play out in court.

[Anonymous]

Does the filing from Penn actually state that McKenzie was in the hospital on a psych hold?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely sickened by this thread and hope it's just one person with an axe to grind hate posting against this woman.

Unfortunately if you read the prior thread, you’ll see that it’s multiple sickos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the mother was happy her daughter was being successful and didn't want to get in her way. Otherwise she has to be incredibly checked out not to have intervened.
"Mackenzie, if you don't stop lying to reporters, I will tell them your hospitalization was really a psychiatric hold"

I agree with Mackenzie. Either way she a terrible parent.

I mean honestly it confirms the abuse. And what Penn did talking to her mother was a clear FERPA violation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why was it that the Rhodes committee asked her to withdraw her application, again?

Technically they didn’t. It was Penn that asked her to withdraw. The Rhodes investigative subcommittee issued a report recommending that the scholarship be rescinded, but Mackenzie had an opportunity to respond and challenge the subcommittee’s finding before a final determination was made by the Rhodes Trust. According to reports, Mackenzie wanted to submit a response but was advised not to by her attorney after Penn’s general counsel threatened to refer the matter to federal prosecutors based on alleged misrepresentations in her financial aid application (although it does not appear there were any actual misrepresentations in her federal financial aid applications). Mackenzie reportedly decided to withdraw her application instead.

Strangely she didn’t want to be prosecuted in Federal court for her crimes. Hmmm what a victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why was it that the Rhodes committee asked her to withdraw her application, again?

Technically they didn’t. It was Penn that asked her to withdraw. The Rhodes investigative subcommittee issued a report recommending that the scholarship be rescinded, but Mackenzie had an opportunity to respond and challenge the subcommittee’s finding before a final determination was made by the Rhodes Trust. According to reports, Mackenzie wanted to submit a response but was advised not to by her attorney after Penn’s general counsel threatened to refer the matter to federal prosecutors based on alleged misrepresentations in her financial aid application (although it does not appear there were any actual misrepresentations in her federal financial aid applications). Mackenzie reportedly decided to withdraw her application instead.

Strangely she didn’t want to be prosecuted in Federal court for her crimes. Hmmm what a victim.

She didn't commit any crimes but was trying to save herself from a vindictive administrator.

This isn't going to trial, Penn is going to quietly pat her a boatload of money. And she deserves it. They tried to ruin her life because some admin was dumb enough to listen to her abuser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the mother was happy her daughter was being successful and didn't want to get in her way. Otherwise she has to be incredibly checked out not to have intervened.
"Mackenzie, if you don't stop lying to reporters, I will tell them your hospitalization was really a psychiatric hold"

I agree with Mackenzie. Either way she a terrible parent.

I mean honestly it confirms the abuse. And what Penn did talking to her mother was a clear FERPA violation.

I wonder if she has filed a FERPA complaint?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why was it that the Rhodes committee asked her to withdraw her application, again?

Technically they didn’t. It was Penn that asked her to withdraw. The Rhodes investigative subcommittee issued a report recommending that the scholarship be rescinded, but Mackenzie had an opportunity to respond and challenge the subcommittee’s finding before a final determination was made by the Rhodes Trust. According to reports, Mackenzie wanted to submit a response but was advised not to by her attorney after Penn’s general counsel threatened to refer the matter to federal prosecutors based on alleged misrepresentations in her financial aid application (although it does not appear there were any actual misrepresentations in her federal financial aid applications). Mackenzie reportedly decided to withdraw her application instead.

Strangely she didn’t want to be prosecuted in Federal court for her crimes. Hmmm what a victim.

She didn't commit any crimes but was trying to save herself from a vindictive administrator.

This isn't going to trial, Penn is going to quietly pat her a boatload of money. And she deserves it. They tried to ruin her life because some admin was dumb enough to listen to her abuser.

I think Penn is in the wrong here, but why wouldn’t they have already tried to settle? Why the 90 page response?

[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: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.

Why was it that the Rhodes committee asked her to withdraw her application, again?

Technically they didn’t. It was Penn that asked her to withdraw. The Rhodes investigative subcommittee issued a report recommending that the scholarship be rescinded, but Mackenzie had an opportunity to respond and challenge the subcommittee’s finding before a final determination was made by the Rhodes Trust. According to reports, Mackenzie wanted to submit a response but was advised not to by her attorney after Penn’s general counsel threatened to refer the matter to federal prosecutors based on alleged misrepresentations in her financial aid application (although it does not appear there were any actual misrepresentations in her federal financial aid applications). Mackenzie reportedly decided to withdraw her application instead.

Strangely she didn’t want to be prosecuted in Federal court for her crimes. Hmmm what a victim.

She didn't commit any crimes but was trying to save herself from a vindictive administrator.

This isn't going to trial, Penn is going to quietly pat her a boatload of money. And she deserves it. They tried to ruin her life because some admin was dumb enough to listen to her abuser.

I think Penn is in the wrong here, but why wouldn’t they have already tried to settle? Why the 90 page response?

If they don't file a Response they risk default and responses are on a deadline. The negotiations take time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why was it that the Rhodes committee asked her to withdraw her application, again?

Technically they didn’t. It was Penn that asked her to withdraw. The Rhodes investigative subcommittee issued a report recommending that the scholarship be rescinded, but Mackenzie had an opportunity to respond and challenge the subcommittee’s finding before a final determination was made by the Rhodes Trust. According to reports, Mackenzie wanted to submit a response but was advised not to by her attorney after Penn’s general counsel threatened to refer the matter to federal prosecutors based on alleged misrepresentations in her financial aid application (although it does not appear there were any actual misrepresentations in her federal financial aid applications). Mackenzie reportedly decided to withdraw her application instead.

Strangely she didn’t want to be prosecuted in Federal court for her crimes. Hmmm what a victim.

She has always contended, and continues to, that her FAFSA was correct. She listed herself as first-gen on the FAFSA in keeping with the consistent federal definition that a child who has aged out of the foster care system has no family of origin and therefore must, by definition, be first-gen. The reason her lawyer advised her not to respond to the final determination is that once a federal prosecution for FAFSA fraud is initiated, it's an expensive and lengthy ordeal. It's not because she thought she'd lose, it's because she didn't want to engage in a multi-year federal criminal prosecution.

But sure, let's decide that someone who had not lived with her mother for years and had zero financial support from her her was obligated (despite years of contrary precedent) to list her estranged mother as a source of financial support for college. Would Carey have even provided the necessary financial info to do this? The whole point here is that Mackenzie DID NOT HAVE FAMILY FINANCIAL SUPPORT. Just like any other student who was emancipated, abandoned, or aged out of the foster system. Mackenzie may not look like the picture you have in your head of a student with no financial support, but she is. And if that makes you mad, your anger is best placed on the parent who abused Mackenzie and then withdrew financial support.

Do you honestly think Carey was ready to help send Mackenzie to college and Mackenzie just decided to run some scheme to get someone else to pay for it? That doesn't make sense. If Carey was willing and able to pay, why wouldn't Mackenzie just let her? The answer is that she wasn't, and also Mackenzie knew that any offer of support could be used as stick to continue to abuse her. Because that's what abusive parents do.