Another Black Eye for Penn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Safe bet her and her “team” are on this thread. Their desperate game plan seems to be doubling down on the lies, distortions, finger pointing, and gas light everyone. Why? Because of optics. She’s a cute white woman who looks younger than age 25 and she’s been getting away with this serial liar coquette routine for a decade. If this was an ugly and scary looking poor white boy from a trailer park or poor Black or Hispanic boy from a St Louis ghetto they’d have zero tenured faculty on their side and would be facing several felony counts for fraud and theft.

White privilege personified.

The mom is white privilege personified. She should face consequences for her abuse.

[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 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.

I think these two things are being conflated. Lack of financial support is not the same things as being first generation attending college. You could be first generation attending college and have plenty of money for college (rich plumber dad!). You could also have college-educated parents that have no money = lack of financial support. The "first gen" box is clearly directed at a certain type of student that colleges are hoping to attract (e.g., a way to get around racial or other quotas).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safe bet her and her “team” are on this thread. Their desperate game plan seems to be doubling down on the lies, distortions, finger pointing, and gas light everyone. Why? Because of optics. She’s a cute white woman who looks younger than age 25 and she’s been getting away with this serial liar coquette routine for a decade. If this was an ugly and scary looking poor white boy from a trailer park or poor Black or Hispanic boy from a St Louis ghetto they’d have zero tenured faculty on their side and would be facing several felony counts for fraud and theft.

White privilege personified.

The mom is white privilege personified. She should face consequences for her abuse.

The prosecuter said pursuing the mom was the biggest mistake of his career. The mom is like 60 years old with a clean record and a sterling professional medical record. Meanwhile, the messy daughter is 25 and is suing everyone and mooching from people.

[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 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.

I think these two things are being conflated. Lack of financial support is not the same things as being first generation attending college. You could be first generation attending college and have plenty of money for college (rich plumber dad!). You could also have college-educated parents that have no money = lack of financial support. The "first gen" box is clearly directed at a certain type of student that colleges are hoping to attract (e.g., a way to get around racial or other quotas).

Tell us you didn’t read the article without telling us you didn’t read the article.

[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:

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.

I don’t see evidence that Fierceton is using the privilege she undoubtedly benefits from to help others, unless you are counting her involvement in the other lawsuit (which is something).

As for why I raise the issue of systemic racism here, I raise these issues all the time. If you think that it’s unusual to raise issues of white privilege and systemic racism when you see it, that’s on you. But it is not unusual for me to raise the issue and it is glaring here.

Her privilege is relevant here because this thread and this situation would not exist if she wasn’t a pretty young white woman. It is frustrating that Fierceton and her supporters don’t see that, and frankly I think it is why there is so much (inappropriate) fury towards Fierceton. Do I excuse the behavior? No. The posters calling her vicious names are out of line. But I also think that people who are coming here to talk about how vile anyone who questions Fierceton’s narrative at all here are not acting well either. You can’t just pretend away that a Black man (who would never have been called a “kid”) with the same profile would have been a lot more likely to have been arrested for fraud with the same factual situation. You can’t just shrug and say oh, people who are lashing out at Fierceton are just awful people when what a lot of them are probably lashing out at is less Fierceton herself and more the fact that she didn’t face jail, or criminal charges, or the other realities that other students would have faced. You want compassion for Fierceton as an abuse victim (and I agree she deserves compassion) but you also are castigating anyone who raises any questions at all about what happened. Why do you demand that Fierceton never face a question about her credibility? And be unquestionably believed so strongly? Why does it so deeply upset you to see people even ask a question about what happened, to the point where you write long paragraphs (ok, me too) about the act of questioning? You expressed horror at the entire thread, at the existence of any questions at all, not just at the people calling Fierceton names. And there are legitimate questions here about Penn and Fierceton; it’s (to me) a display of privilege in action that people react with fury about people even trying to figure out what happened.

Also, regarding the professors, I don’t want to speak for anyone but I think the point is that they seem to have acted inappropriately and it does put their statements into question as a result. That doesn’t mean Fierceton was wrong to take the hand that they reached out, but it does call their judgment into question. Are you really okay with how they acted here? You think it is fine for a professor to invite a known abuse victim who is their student into their home during a pandemic, for extended periods of time, with no efforts made to find other, more appropriate housing? It is bad judgment and it does make me question their judgment in general.

1) I specifically said in the post you are responding to that I was not castigating you

2) I did not demand that she does not face a single question about her credibility

What I said is that the way people are discussing a girl who was so severely beaten by her mother that she was in the hospital for a week and who was assaulted by her mother's boyfriend, and who suffered some type of medical event in subsequent years is so revolting as to be difficult to read.

You and I likely agree about systemic racism. I basically agree with everything you are saying about that. But, again, you seem to be mad at her for not having suffered worse. And you seem to want to interrogate her to the level a black man would be held to. And I just don't understand wanting a victim of child abuse to suffer more. Why not point the light of your racial inequity lens at her mother, who's white privilege allowed her to escape any consequences for almost killing her child. I object to the idea that this girl needs to suffer more for equality.

I do find the questions about her credibility pretty appalling. Not because I think no one should be questioned, but because she has been, this was in fact litigated by the investigation offices at the time. Do you know how hard it is for a white rich person to lose custody? Speaking of privilege. Very hard. By all accounts she lives a modest life and spent her college years studying hard enough to get a Rhodes Scholarship. What do you know that you think the doctors that treated her that night don't? That the teachers who helped her don't? That her friends at the time do not know? The child protective agency never exonerated the mother, she got herself removed from the list on a technicality that CPS fought tooth and nail. So I think this extraordinarily well litigated episode of child abuse happened and do not understand why you want to question her when I would think your goal would be that this doesn't happen to anyone, not that it happens to a couple abused white kids to make up for all the black kids out there suffering too. I don't want it to happen to ANY abused kid, or any kid at all.

What I meant by using her voice, is that in addition to the case about the black man who died in the caster building (an action she took that is likely the reason she's in this predicament), she has privilege afforded to her that yes, people believe her. She has people supporting her, access to legal funds, intelligence to use them all, to not allow this to be swept under the rug. And when high profile stories like this make the news, it frequently does have a waterfall effect to help others less able to fight back (of course not all and not always, not even close). She has been tarred and feathered and is likely being retraumatized by this. She could have written an apology letter, gotten her degree and gone quietly away, but she isn't, she is likely going to win multiple lawsuits and create actual change. However small. And incur great personal misery while doing it.

As for the professor thing, it makes me wonder if you were ever an at risk child. This was a female professor giving her a stable place to land. There isn't even a sure statement that she was her professor at the time. There aren't a lot of options available to at risk kids who have aged out of foster care, it is telling that you frame the kindness of a trusted adult as creepy, and illustrates why frequently these kids have nowhere to go. You think it would have been better for them to pay for her apartment? What if they couldn't afford that? Then just no help at all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Safe bet her and her “team” are on this thread. Their desperate game plan seems to be doubling down on the lies, distortions, finger pointing, and gas light everyone. Why? Because of optics. She’s a cute white woman who looks younger than age 25 and she’s been getting away with this serial liar coquette routine for a decade. If this was an ugly and scary looking poor white boy from a trailer park or poor Black or Hispanic boy from a St Louis ghetto they’d have zero tenured faculty on their side and would be facing several felony counts for fraud and theft.

White privilege personified.

Nice grammar, illiterate fool.

[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:

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.

I think these two things are being conflated. Lack of financial support is not the same things as being first generation attending college. You could be first generation attending college and have plenty of money for college (rich plumber dad!). You could also have college-educated parents that have no money = lack of financial support. The "first gen" box is clearly directed at a certain type of student that colleges are hoping to attract (e.g., a way to get around racial or other quotas).

Tell us you didn’t read the article without telling us you didn’t read the article.

Haha. I was just going to post the exact same thing.

PP needs to read the article before posting again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safe bet her and her “team” are on this thread. Their desperate game plan seems to be doubling down on the lies, distortions, finger pointing, and gas light everyone. Why? Because of optics. She’s a cute white woman who looks younger than age 25 and she’s been getting away with this serial liar coquette routine for a decade. If this was an ugly and scary looking poor white boy from a trailer park or poor Black or Hispanic boy from a St Louis ghetto they’d have zero tenured faculty on their side and would be facing several felony counts for fraud and theft.

White privilege personified.

The mom is white privilege personified. She should face consequences for her abuse.

The prosecuter said pursuing the mom was the biggest mistake of his career. The mom is like 60 years old with a clean record and a sterling professional medical record. Meanwhile, the messy daughter is 25 and is suing everyone and mooching from people.

The woman laughed about her boyfriend groping her daughter. That prosecutor's judgment was way off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safe bet her and her “team” are on this thread. Their desperate game plan seems to be doubling down on the lies, distortions, finger pointing, and gas light everyone. Why? Because of optics. She’s a cute white woman who looks younger than age 25 and she’s been getting away with this serial liar coquette routine for a decade. If this was an ugly and scary looking poor white boy from a trailer park or poor Black or Hispanic boy from a St Louis ghetto they’d have zero tenured faculty on their side and would be facing several felony counts for fraud and theft.

White privilege personified.

The mom is white privilege personified. She should face consequences for her abuse.

The prosecuter said pursuing the mom was the biggest mistake of his career. The mom is like 60 years old with a clean record and a sterling professional medical record. Meanwhile, the messy daughter is 25 and is suing everyone and mooching from people.

The woman laughed about her boyfriend groping her daughter. That prosecutor's judgment was way off.

Is it a vast conspiracy by the mom, her dead boyfriend, hospitals, prosecutors, judges, Penn administration, Penn lawyers, Rhodes committee, and various reporters........... or is the common denominator an unemployed 25 year old rich white brat?

[Anonymous]

This situation is similar to the other college entrance scandal in that those who pled guilty got light sentences and those who went to trial got harsher ones.
So if Fierceton would stop talking and stand down there would probably be some kind of settlement. For example : keep your undergraduate degree — you were a kid and the University should have perhaps looked harder. But no on the graduate degree.
You were an adult, an Ivy grad and you should have known better. Such a person should not be trusted as a therapist with patients.
However if it goes to trial … First the lawyer will benefit from the publicity. But among the judge and jury it’s impossible to find someone who doesn’t have some relationship to college. Either they went and paid the bill. Or they sent their kids and paid the bill. Or they were unable to go to college because they couldn’t afford it. Also $300K+ is a lot to most people.
I don’t think there will be a lot of sympathy. And the facts don’t support a strong case. I think it would end very badly for “Fierceton “. Even that name/ name change would bother some people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safe bet her and her “team” are on this thread. Their desperate game plan seems to be doubling down on the lies, distortions, finger pointing, and gas light everyone. Why? Because of optics. She’s a cute white woman who looks younger than age 25 and she’s been getting away with this serial liar coquette routine for a decade. If this was an ugly and scary looking poor white boy from a trailer park or poor Black or Hispanic boy from a St Louis ghetto they’d have zero tenured faculty on their side and would be facing several felony counts for fraud and theft.

White privilege personified.

Nice grammar, illiterate fool.

Please pardon my juvenile prose. I didn’t grow up a rich white spoiled brat at $30,000 yr elite schools, live in a surgeon’s mansion, and get a new Mercedes for my 16th birthday, and then steal a place at an Ivy League college.

[Anonymous]

My sister had a friend whose mom abused him. Despite repeated calls to the cops, despite evidence of bruises all over him, despite teachers calling in the abuse, despite lawyers getting called, social services and the cops did nothing. His mom also did his best to sabotage his college education by refusing info he needed for FAFSA and telling financial aid she supported him when he didn't. The mom was white, my sister's friend wasn't (his Dad had died). I have definitely seen rich white lady privilege when it comes to child abuse.

Moms like this exist and they're absolutely horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safe bet her and her “team” are on this thread. Their desperate game plan seems to be doubling down on the lies, distortions, finger pointing, and gas light everyone. Why? Because of optics. She’s a cute white woman who looks younger than age 25 and she’s been getting away with this serial liar coquette routine for a decade. If this was an ugly and scary looking poor white boy from a trailer park or poor Black or Hispanic boy from a St Louis ghetto they’d have zero tenured faculty on their side and would be facing several felony counts for fraud and theft.

White privilege personified.

The mom is white privilege personified. She should face consequences for her abuse.

The prosecuter said pursuing the mom was the biggest mistake of his career. The mom is like 60 years old with a clean record and a sterling professional medical record. Meanwhile, the messy daughter is 25 and is suing everyone and mooching from people.

The woman laughed about her boyfriend groping her daughter. That prosecutor's judgment was way off.

Is it a vast conspiracy by the mom, her dead boyfriend, hospitals, prosecutors, judges, Penn administration, Penn lawyers, Rhodes committee, and various reporters........... or is the common denominator an unemployed 25 year old rich white brat?

Is it a vast conspiracy by the daughter, the hospital at the time, CPS, her teachers, her school administration, her friends and their parents, her college professors and advisors......or is the common denominator a rich white privileged and embarrassed mother with a grudge who will not accept that her daughter has freed herself from her grasp?

See, anyone can do that little rhetorical trick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safe bet her and her “team” are on this thread. Their desperate game plan seems to be doubling down on the lies, distortions, finger pointing, and gas light everyone. Why? Because of optics. She’s a cute white woman who looks younger than age 25 and she’s been getting away with this serial liar coquette routine for a decade. If this was an ugly and scary looking poor white boy from a trailer park or poor Black or Hispanic boy from a St Louis ghetto they’d have zero tenured faculty on their side and would be facing several felony counts for fraud and theft.

White privilege personified.

The mom is white privilege personified. She should face consequences for her abuse.

The prosecuter said pursuing the mom was the biggest mistake of his career. The mom is like 60 years old with a clean record and a sterling professional medical record. Meanwhile, the messy daughter is 25 and is suing everyone and mooching from people.

The woman laughed about her boyfriend groping her daughter. That prosecutor's judgment was way off.

Is it a vast conspiracy by the mom, her dead boyfriend, hospitals, prosecutors, judges, Penn administration, Penn lawyers, Rhodes committee, and various reporters........... or is the common denominator an unemployed 25 year old rich white brat?

She’s been wronged by her mom and Penn. The rest is fallout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Safe bet her and her “team” are on this thread. Their desperate game plan seems to be doubling down on the lies, distortions, finger pointing, and gas light everyone. Why? Because of optics. She’s a cute white woman who looks younger than age 25 and she’s been getting away with this serial liar coquette routine for a decade. If this was an ugly and scary looking poor white boy from a trailer park or poor Black or Hispanic boy from a St Louis ghetto they’d have zero tenured faculty on their side and would be facing several felony counts for fraud and theft.

White privilege personified.

Nice grammar, illiterate fool.

Please pardon my juvenile prose. I didn’t grow up a rich white spoiled brat at $30,000 yr elite schools, live in a surgeon’s mansion, and get a new Mercedes for my 16th birthday, and then steal a place at an Ivy League college.

So much butthurt over a stranger.