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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the case is sad. As brilliant as she is, I really think she would have landed at a top school had she been honest about her background. Most kids at those schools come from privileged backgrounds anyway, but even saying that she came from privilege but found out how the other side lived when, after a dispute with her mom, she ended up in foster care for a year, would have been powerful.

What exactly did she say other that she was in foster care and aged out of foster care and had no guardian? You have not read her essay so you can’t say she was being untruthful. Neither Penn nor Rhodes has show that she wrote anything untruthful.

Did you read the filing? There are a number of quotes from her essay that are not truthful: that her bones were broken, that she knew all the police from the time she was 6yo. Quoting from page 69:

"Fierceton also provided this false narrative to gain acceptance into two different Penn Summer Abroad programs and a related fellowship program. In her essays, Fierceton wrote about “bouncing around the foster care system throughout my life.” She described herself as being a “child of the system.”

While I understand that the document is Penn's assertion, I highly doubt their quotes from her essays are inaccurate.

Neither of those statements are false. She was in duster care, she was a child of system and she was bounced around throughout her life.

Because the reader used their confirmed bias to read things that are not there does not make the statements false.

No, the confirmation bias is yours.

"Bouncing around throughout my life" does not mean one year at 17yo.

Saying you have multiple broken bones when you didn't is a lie.

Yes a year can be throughout my life.

And she did not say “broken bones” she said “I was broken”.

Keep trying to twist her words.

Please refer to pg 92 where they quote her Questbridge application:

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

In her 2015 Questbridge application, MF writes in the additional information section: "Before entering the foster care system in September of 2014, my life was never a fairy tale.. by the time I was six, I knew all of the police officers in my county by first name. By the time I was eleven, Child Protective Services had been called over 14 times regarding various concerns for my safety. At age 13, I had broken more bones than years I had been alive."

Again, from her Questbridge application:
"I was placed in foster care after spending a month in the hospital trying to survive extensive injuries due to physical abuse"
"I do not recognize the person looking back at me... my facial features are so distorted and swollen that I cannot tell them apart. My blonde hair is caked with dried blood. I can't breathe: my ribs won't allow me. I can't sit up: the braces stabilizing most of my body constrain me. I can't smile: my face is too swollen. My body is broken. I force my eye open - the one that isn't swollen shut. Heart rate monitor, iv pump, crash cart. They're all there to make sure I don't stop breathing again... The reporters circle like vultures: I'm their prey. They want to talk about the person who did this to me. The one who almost killed me. The one who is in jail. The one who is my mother. She broke me."

Exactly that is where she clearly says she is broken but never states broken bones.

I included both references so you could see that you are wrong.

Read again.

"At age 13, I had broken more bones than years I had been alive."

That doesn't even get into her comments about stopping breathing "again" ...

There is no evidence she did not have broken bones as a child. Most children of abuse don’t go to the dr when they break bones.

She said she couldn’t breath… I don’t see where their is evidence she didn’t have problems breathing… sound like she is describing a panic attack.

Actually, a child attending a private school who had had 13 broken bones would almost invariably have seen a doctor and have a record of broken bones. Even the private school would have likely documented a kid with 13 broken bones throughout schooling! (Do you realize how unusual that is? I had kids who were athletes and whenever one was in a cast, the whole world asked about it.) But, fwiw, the hospital records apparently specifically indicate there is no prior medical or surgical history. A 17yo who went in for abuse would have surely been asked and revealed any broken bones...

She said the heart monitor, iv pump and crash cart are there "to make sure I don't stop breathing again" - None of those would be necessary in a panic attack.

[Anonymous]

She was identified by the hospital as having a seizure disorder.

However the lies stack up, the issue in the suit against UPenn is tortious interference with the Rhodes Scholarship. Penn says they felt obligated to contact Rhodes; her case is that they had no business doing so. As the case is adjudicated, that will be resolved in that process, not here.

I think that it is a mistake for Penn to withhold her master’s degree. She earned it and she has an e-mail from the university stating that she has met all the requirements. As an academic accomplishment, she deserves it. I think that Penn will lose on this poin. However, the university has another opportunity which makes more sense. An application for licensure normally requires a recommendation from the degree granting institution. That they could withhold on the basis of character for all the reasons they’ve already stated. That would be harder for her to challenge

As far as retaliation is concerned, Penn simply denies it, claiming that they knew nothing about her involvement. That may be true, or it may not. It is her challenge to prove that, and it will be extremely difficult unless she has a witness or a document that she hasn’t yet presented. Penn is staying as far away from the Driver lawsuit as possible in contrast to the way in which they go into excruciating detail about her past. They simply deny without explanation. That may be sufficient. The burden of proof is on her, so it is not in Penn’s interests not to offer anything about the Driver case unless they have to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the case is sad. As brilliant as she is, I really think she would have landed at a top school had she been honest about her background. Most kids at those schools come from privileged backgrounds anyway, but even saying that she came from privilege but found out how the other side lived when, after a dispute with her mom, she ended up in foster care for a year, would have been powerful.

What exactly did she say other that she was in foster care and aged out of foster care and had no guardian? You have not read her essay so you can’t say she was being untruthful. Neither Penn nor Rhodes has show that she wrote anything untruthful.

Did you read the filing? There are a number of quotes from her essay that are not truthful: that her bones were broken, that she knew all the police from the time she was 6yo. Quoting from page 69:

"Fierceton also provided this false narrative to gain acceptance into two different Penn Summer Abroad programs and a related fellowship program. In her essays, Fierceton wrote about “bouncing around the foster care system throughout my life.” She described herself as being a “child of the system.”

While I understand that the document is Penn's assertion, I highly doubt their quotes from her essays are inaccurate.

Neither of those statements are false. She was in duster care, she was a child of system and she was bounced around throughout her life.

Because the reader used their confirmed bias to read things that are not there does not make the statements false.

No, the confirmation bias is yours.

"Bouncing around throughout my life" does not mean one year at 17yo.

Saying you have multiple broken bones when you didn't is a lie.

Yes a year can be throughout my life.

And she did not say “broken bones” she said “I was broken”.

Keep trying to twist her words.

Please refer to pg 92 where they quote her Questbridge application:

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

In her 2015 Questbridge application, MF writes in the additional information section: "Before entering the foster care system in September of 2014, my life was never a fairy tale.. by the time I was six, I knew all of the police officers in my county by first name. By the time I was eleven, Child Protective Services had been called over 14 times regarding various concerns for my safety. At age 13, I had broken more bones than years I had been alive."

Again, from her Questbridge application:
"I was placed in foster care after spending a month in the hospital trying to survive extensive injuries due to physical abuse"
"I do not recognize the person looking back at me... my facial features are so distorted and swollen that I cannot tell them apart. My blonde hair is caked with dried blood. I can't breathe: my ribs won't allow me. I can't sit up: the braces stabilizing most of my body constrain me. I can't smile: my face is too swollen. My body is broken. I force my eye open - the one that isn't swollen shut. Heart rate monitor, iv pump, crash cart. They're all there to make sure I don't stop breathing again... The reporters circle like vultures: I'm their prey. They want to talk about the person who did this to me. The one who almost killed me. The one who is in jail. The one who is my mother. She broke me."

Exactly that is where she clearly says she is broken but never states broken bones.

I included both references so you could see that you are wrong.

Read again.

"At age 13, I had broken more bones than years I had been alive."

That doesn't even get into her comments about stopping breathing "again" ...

There is no evidence she did not have broken bones as a child. Most children of abuse don’t go to the dr when they break bones.

She said she couldn’t breath… I don’t see where their is evidence she didn’t have problems breathing… sound like she is describing a panic attack.

Actually, a child attending a private school who had had 13 broken bones would almost invariably have seen a doctor and have a record of broken bones. Even the private school would have likely documented a kid with 13 broken bones throughout schooling! (Do you realize how unusual that is? I had kids who were athletes and whenever one was in a cast, the whole world asked about it.) But, fwiw, the hospital records apparently specifically indicate there is no prior medical or surgical history. A 17yo who went in for abuse would have surely been asked and revealed any broken bones...

She said the heart monitor, iv pump and crash cart are there "to make sure I don't stop breathing again" - None of those would be necessary in a panic attack.

Most abused kids have broken bones heal without going to a doctor. So there would be no record.

The school did call CPS 7 times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the case is sad. As brilliant as she is, I really think she would have landed at a top school had she been honest about her background. Most kids at those schools come from privileged backgrounds anyway, but even saying that she came from privilege but found out how the other side lived when, after a dispute with her mom, she ended up in foster care for a year, would have been powerful.

What exactly did she say other that she was in foster care and aged out of foster care and had no guardian? You have not read her essay so you can’t say she was being untruthful. Neither Penn nor Rhodes has show that she wrote anything untruthful.

Did you read the filing? There are a number of quotes from her essay that are not truthful: that her bones were broken, that she knew all the police from the time she was 6yo. Quoting from page 69:

"Fierceton also provided this false narrative to gain acceptance into two different Penn Summer Abroad programs and a related fellowship program. In her essays, Fierceton wrote about “bouncing around the foster care system throughout my life.” She described herself as being a “child of the system.”

While I understand that the document is Penn's assertion, I highly doubt their quotes from her essays are inaccurate.

Neither of those statements are false. She was in duster care, she was a child of system and she was bounced around throughout her life.

Because the reader used their confirmed bias to read things that are not there does not make the statements false.

No, the confirmation bias is yours.

"Bouncing around throughout my life" does not mean one year at 17yo.

Saying you have multiple broken bones when you didn't is a lie.

Yes a year can be throughout my life.

And she did not say “broken bones” she said “I was broken”.

Keep trying to twist her words.

Please refer to pg 92 where they quote her Questbridge application:

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

In her 2015 Questbridge application, MF writes in the additional information section: "Before entering the foster care system in September of 2014, my life was never a fairy tale.. by the time I was six, I knew all of the police officers in my county by first name. By the time I was eleven, Child Protective Services had been called over 14 times regarding various concerns for my safety. At age 13, I had broken more bones than years I had been alive."

Again, from her Questbridge application:
"I was placed in foster care after spending a month in the hospital trying to survive extensive injuries due to physical abuse"
"I do not recognize the person looking back at me... my facial features are so distorted and swollen that I cannot tell them apart. My blonde hair is caked with dried blood. I can't breathe: my ribs won't allow me. I can't sit up: the braces stabilizing most of my body constrain me. I can't smile: my face is too swollen. My body is broken. I force my eye open - the one that isn't swollen shut. Heart rate monitor, iv pump, crash cart. They're all there to make sure I don't stop breathing again... The reporters circle like vultures: I'm their prey. They want to talk about the person who did this to me. The one who almost killed me. The one who is in jail. The one who is my mother. She broke me."

Exactly that is where she clearly says she is broken but never states broken bones.

I included both references so you could see that you are wrong.

Read again.

"At age 13, I had broken more bones than years I had been alive."

That doesn't even get into her comments about stopping breathing "again" ...

There is no evidence she did not have broken bones as a child. Most children of abuse don’t go to the dr when they break bones.

She said she couldn’t breath… I don’t see where their is evidence she didn’t have problems breathing… sound like she is describing a panic attack.

Actually, a child attending a private school who had had 13 broken bones would almost invariably have seen a doctor and have a record of broken bones. Even the private school would have likely documented a kid with 13 broken bones throughout schooling! (Do you realize how unusual that is? I had kids who were athletes and whenever one was in a cast, the whole world asked about it.) But, fwiw, the hospital records apparently specifically indicate there is no prior medical or surgical history. A 17yo who went in for abuse would have surely been asked and revealed any broken bones...

She said the heart monitor, iv pump and crash cart are there "to make sure I don't stop breathing again" - None of those would be necessary in a panic attack.

She did stop breathing when she collapsed at school and the crash cart is there to make sure she doesn’t stop breathing.

The other statements about being unable to breath and her rib cage are the statements that sound like a panic attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She was identified by the hospital as having a seizure disorder.

However the lies stack up, the issue in the suit against UPenn is tortious interference with the Rhodes Scholarship. Penn says they felt obligated to contact Rhodes; her case is that they had no business doing so. As the case is adjudicated, that will be resolved in that process, not here.

I think that it is a mistake for Penn to withhold her master’s degree. She earned it and she has an e-mail from the university stating that she has met all the requirements. As an academic accomplishment, she deserves it. I think that Penn will lose on this poin. However, the university has another opportunity which makes more sense. An application for licensure normally requires a recommendation from the degree granting institution. That they could withhold on the basis of character for all the reasons they’ve already stated. That would be harder for her to challenge

As far as retaliation is concerned, Penn simply denies it, claiming that they knew nothing about her involvement. That may be true, or it may not. It is her challenge to prove that, and it will be extremely difficult unless she has a witness or a document that she hasn’t yet presented. Penn is staying as far away from the Driver lawsuit as possible in contrast to the way in which they go into excruciating detail about her past. They simply deny without explanation. That may be sufficient. The burden of proof is on her, so it is not in Penn’s interests not to offer anything about the Driver case unless they have to.

I agree with you. I do find it hard to believe that Penn had no idea about her lies until she was almost done with her Masters. I would think the admissions rep would have contacted her high school way back when. Maybe they thought Questbridge had done better vetting?

And I agree that it was all so unnecessary. She could have easily been admitted with her real story: an upper middle-class kid who ended up in foster care for a year and now has a passion for the hardship those children face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

She did stop breathing when she collapsed at school and the crash cart is there to make sure she doesn’t stop breathing.

The other statements about being unable to breath and her rib cage are the statements that sound like a panic attack.

Where did you get your info that the school called CPS seven times and that she actually stopped breathing at school?

Did they perform CPR?

[Anonymous]

For the weirdos who think Penn "owes" her her MA, she's lucky they don't also claw back her BA. If it's proven you lied on your application, a university can claw back your degree(s). It happened a few years ago at...Stanford? It was a national story, I can't recall the specifics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is PENNs burden to prove she lied. They said publically she lied. They told Rhodes scholarship committee she lied. If they can’t prove she lied it slander.

Listen crazy, you are wrong. She brought the lawsuit. It is her burden to prove retaliation. Penn doesn’t have to prove anything.

It must be so weird in your fact free fantasy world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The burden of proof is on her, NOT UPenn.

IMO, her retaliation claim is unconvincing. The law suit and her role in it began before she was named a Rhodes Scholar. If she had been named a Rhodes Scholar,THEN became involved in a suit, and after that Penn began an investigation of the statements made in her Rhodes application, then maybe it could be argued that she has a colorable claim that Penn's actions were motivated by retaliation. But here, she was named a Rhodes Scholar AFTER she became involved.

I think it's apparent that it was the anonymous email and the multiple phone calls saying she misrepresented her background which prompted Penn's actions.

Moreover, it's the Rhodes Trust which had the power to withhold the scholarship, not Penn. Nothing suggests that Penn told the Rhodes Trust about the law suit and nothing suggests that the law suit played any role in the Trust's actions.

Moreover, again Penn didn't revoke her Rhodes. The Rhodes Trust did. It's not even clear that it's Penn's notification to the Rhodes Trust which prompted the Trust's investigation. The Trust received the same anonymous email UPenn did. That might have been enough for the Trust to investigate. Rather than responding to the Trust's report, she chose to withdraw from the proceedings. I think she blew any claim she had by doing that. It's analogous to resigning from a job when you're notified that there's an investigation as to whether you embezzled money from the company. You can't then turn around and claim wrongful termination.

Excellent and interesting analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the case is sad. As brilliant as she is, I really think she would have landed at a top school had she been honest about her background. Most kids at those schools come from privileged backgrounds anyway, but even saying that she came from privilege but found out how the other side lived when, after a dispute with her mom, she ended up in foster care for a year, would have been powerful.

What exactly did she say other that she was in foster care and aged out of foster care and had no guardian? You have not read her essay so you can’t say she was being untruthful. Neither Penn nor Rhodes has show that she wrote anything untruthful.

Did you read the filing? There are a number of quotes from her essay that are not truthful: that her bones were broken, that she knew all the police from the time she was 6yo. Quoting from page 69:

"Fierceton also provided this false narrative to gain acceptance into two different Penn Summer Abroad programs and a related fellowship program. In her essays, Fierceton wrote about “bouncing around the foster care system throughout my life.” She described herself as being a “child of the system.”

While I understand that the document is Penn's assertion, I highly doubt their quotes from her essays are inaccurate.

Neither of those statements are false. She was in duster care, she was a child of system and she was bounced around throughout her life.

Because the reader used their confirmed bias to read things that are not there does not make the statements false.

No, the confirmation bias is yours.

"Bouncing around throughout my life" does not mean one year at 17yo.

Saying you have multiple broken bones when you didn't is a lie.

Yes a year can be throughout my life.

And she did not say “broken bones” she said “I was broken”.

Keep trying to twist her words.

Whoever you are, contrarian poster, you are being either willfully obtuse, or you haven't actually read the document, or your reading comprehension skills are at the remedial level-perhaps all three.

Page 60, #7 & top of page 61.
" In her 2015 National College Match Application (“QuestBridge”), Fierceton wrote: “By the time I was six, I knew all of the police officers in my county by first name. By the time I was eight, my biological parents had finally divorced, and I became estranged from my father. By the time I was eleven, Child Protective Services had been called over 14 times regarding various concerns for my safety. At age 13, I had broken more bones than years I’d been alive.”

I think that poster is just stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21174416-penn-answer
Begin reading at page 59 of this document. The narrative is quite interesting. It has to take some mental gymnastics to read the facts and find her worthy of defending.

The father is named Billy Terrell, an actor, accused, among other things, of pathological lying when he and the mom divorced. Hmm..

You do realize that the document you’re linking s not an objective report but the university’s attempt to defend itself. It not only is slanted but it whitewashes Penn’s role in all of this and acknowledges no wrongdoing on their part - as would be expected of an institution defending itself against serious allegations

My guess is that the truth in this matter lies somewhere between the positions that the 2 sides have staked out.

DP. Sure, it isn't objective. But the positions taken in it are detailed and supported by facts. When Penn refers to the lack of police records to support a statement Fierceton made about receiving threatening packages and letters, that is likely to be true. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the underlying facts described by Penn have supporting evidence.

It is always telling in a civil dispute when one side has a lot of detail and alleged facts, and the other does not. Fierceton's filing is filled with a bunch of very grand allegations, but comparatively little in the way of citable facts. That is the opposite of the Penn filing.

Lack of police records is not Relevant. It does not disprove her claim.

Sigh, yes, it’s relevant. Honestly the weird Fierceton supporters in this thread are so obtuse.

Here is a primer for you: Fierceton filed suit against the university and certain administrators. She is alleging retaliation, claiming that Penn caused the loss of her Rhodes scholarship because they were unjustly retaliating against her for her involvement in the Driver suit, and seeking damages for that as well as for not granting her Master’s. To defend against the charge of retaliation, the university needs to show that it had good cause for its actions that were not retaliatory in nature. Therefore, the university needs to show that it had ample reason to distrust Fierceton, and to have gone down the path it did with respect to Rhodes. What the answer does is lay out all the facts that demonstrate that Fierceton was untruthful and misrepresented herself in her applications. The police records are relevant because it is a provable fact that shows that something Fierceton said was untrue. It’s just one fact in a constellation of facts that built up to a non-retaliatory justification of Penn’s actions.

The problem for Fierceton is that her credibility is at the very heart of this entire lawsuit. And her credibility does not look good now.

I don’t support Fierceton, I just point out obfuscation.

The rest is to;dr Blah , blah, blah

No police report is NOT proof that it did not happen and irrelevant. A police report that she falsely reported a threat is Perot, no police report is irrelevant.

They have NO PROOF, period.

You seem fundamentally and profoundly unclear on how litigation works. To help you with basics: it is up to Fierceton to prove that she was retaliated against in a court of law. Your ranting here is what is irrelevant.

Oh there is another lawsuit coming for the slander. You think it stops here. You really don’t know how litigation works.

Oh honey. You are so profoundly ignorant. Penn would love to defend against slander because the truth is an absolute defense to slander. It would let them open up every erroneous fact presented by Fierceton over the years. They would be able to subpoena whatever they needed in their defense. I think they’d welcome a slander claim because of the increased discovery they’d get with it.

Fierceton didn’t bring a slander action because she knew she’d lose it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone here is weirdly obsessed with defending this woman. Maybe it's more than one poster, but the style and diction all seems to be coming from the same person. Get over it, ok? She got caught in a scam. In the scheme of things she's still just fine - she'll end up with at least one and probably 2 degree from an Ivy League school where she didn't have to pay a dime.

I agree. One side, UPenn has many facts and documents on their side of the argument and “Fierceton” (what a name!) has basically just “believe me!” On her side. Very weak and bolstered up with exaggerations and fantasy. On one hand you can say no harm done but on the other hand she did defraud the school and others in the same situation have had to pay dearly. And that’s not even to mention the fully qualified student (who wasn’t a pathological liar) who didn’t get into UPenn and might have done better/ done more. It’s ugly all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The burden of proof is on her, NOT UPenn.

IMO, her retaliation claim is unconvincing. The law suit and her role in it began before she was named a Rhodes Scholar. If she had been named a Rhodes Scholar,THEN became involved in a suit, and after that Penn began an investigation of the statements made in her Rhodes application, then maybe it could be argued that she has a colorable claim that Penn's actions were motivated by retaliation. But here, she was named a Rhodes Scholar AFTER she became involved.

I think it's apparent that it was the anonymous email and the multiple phone calls saying she misrepresented her background which prompted Penn's actions.

Moreover, it's the Rhodes Trust which had the power to withhold the scholarship, not Penn. Nothing suggests that Penn told the Rhodes Trust about the law suit and nothing suggests that the law suit played any role in the Trust's actions.

Moreover, again Penn didn't revoke her Rhodes. The Rhodes Trust did. It's not even clear that it's Penn's notification to the Rhodes Trust which prompted the Trust's investigation. The Trust received the same anonymous email UPenn did. That might have been enough for the Trust to investigate. Rather than responding to the Trust's report, she chose to withdraw from the proceedings. I think she blew any claim she had by doing that. It's analogous to resigning from a job when you're notified that there's an investigation as to whether you embezzled money from the company. You can't then turn around and claim wrongful termination.

Well written and logical. But crazy PP just doesn’t accept facts. It’s kind of an identity thing “ person who doesn’t accept facts” maybe there’s a club for that somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the weirdos who think Penn "owes" her her MA, she's lucky they don't also claw back her BA. If it's proven you lied on your application, a university can claw back your degree(s). It happened a few years ago at...Stanford? It was a national story, I can't recall the specifics.

Georgetown. And there is a case at Harvard also.

[Anonymous]

It could be argued that Penn should have investigated more. But lie after lie after lie. I think they could go for Honor Code violation from day 1 of freshman year and all that followed.