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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think she figured out a way around the system, PP. Isn't that why we have this thread in the first place?

She did because Penn’s own definition of 1st gen to college worked for her situation even though her mom is a doctor.

That’s on Penn. They set a definition that is not what most people would think of as 1st generation.

I don't think anyone would actually think their definition applies to her. I think most honest people would have not checked it, called and asked or checked it and added an explanation. I suspect what UPenn meant was if a student, for example, had a parent who has a degree but had not been a part of their life - for example, the child of single parents where the mom doesn't have a degree and the dad does but he didn't stick around. That scenario - where the child has not had the benefit of a college-educated person in their home - is what I understand Penn to be referring to.

Penn's definition of "first-generation" college students goes against what you say, though. Their definition includes not only the first generation to go to college, but also being estranged from family or emancipated, AND being the child of parents who graduated from a non-elite college or university. Fierceton qualifies on the latter two definitions.

You can fault Penn's definitions, but it's pretty clear that they did apply to her.

I have to agree. And this applies to 95% of all college applicants as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think she figured out a way around the system, PP. Isn't that why we have this thread in the first place?

She did because Penn’s own definition of 1st gen to college worked for her situation even though her mom is a doctor.

That’s on Penn. They set a definition that is not what most people would think of as 1st generation.

I don't think anyone would actually think their definition applies to her. I think most honest people would have not checked it, called and asked or checked it and added an explanation. I suspect what UPenn meant was if a student, for example, had a parent who has a degree but had not been a part of their life - for example, the child of single parents where the mom doesn't have a degree and the dad does but he didn't stick around. That scenario - where the child has not had the benefit of a college-educated person in their home - is what I understand Penn to be referring to.

Penn's definition of "first-generation" college students goes against what you say, though. Their definition includes not only the first generation to go to college, but also being estranged from family or emancipated, AND being the child of parents who graduated from a non-elite college or university. Fierceton qualifies on the latter two definitions.

You can fault Penn's definitions, but it's pretty clear that they did apply to her.

I have to agree. And this applies to 95% of all college applicants as well.

^ in fact, it's so broad it's almost meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Penn's definition of "first-generation" college students goes against what you say, though. Their definition includes not only the first generation to go to college, but also being estranged from family or emancipated, AND being the child of parents who graduated from a non-elite college or university. Fierceton qualifies on the latter two definitions.

You can fault Penn's definitions, but it's pretty clear that they did apply to her.

And she could have explained that. Besides, it seems as if she identified herself as "first-generation" not just to Penn but to other organizations, like Questbridge and Rhodes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Je**s Christ! 36 pages of lefitst hand-wringing! She deserved it and figured out a way around the system. Let her be.

? Figured what out, how to get into Penn? She didn't figure out how to get over on the Rhodes Committee though did she?
As far as "Let[ting] her be," she hasn't let it be has she? She doubled down by filing a lawsuit. That's what most of the comments have been about.

DP. No she was awarded the Rhodes. Penn should have sweeper it under the rug but Penn just could not let it go. Penn needs to review their mission.

The anonymous tip was sent to both Penn and the Rhodes Committee, which conducted its own independent investigation. Penn had not have the power to rescind her Rhodes Scholarship.

Let’s get the facts straight. Penn contacted Rhodes and marked her as a fraud, not because they were concerned about “academic integrity” but because they were concerned about how bad it would make them look. By the time this got to Rhodes, she was guilty until proven innocent.

The “anonymous emailer” didn’t contact Rhodes until almost a month after Penn had already done so and after Rhodes had initiated their “investigation”. Since the emailer was anonymous in both instances, we have no idea who it was or if it was even the same person. We have no idea if that person acted on their own or at Penn’s instigation. Could have even been Penn themselves. We just don’t know, but the timing and the delay both make it look suspicious.

Could Penn have swept it under the rug? In her lawsuit she is claiming tortious interference by Penn. we’ll see if that holds up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Let’s get the facts straight. Penn contacted Rhodes and marked her as a fraud, not because they were concerned about “academic integrity” but because they were concerned about how bad it would make them look. By the time this got to Rhodes, she was guilty until proven innocent.

The “anonymous emailer” didn’t contact Rhodes until almost a month after Penn had already done so and after Rhodes had initiated their “investigation”. Since the emailer was anonymous in both instances, we have no idea who it was or if it was even the same person. We have no idea if that person acted on their own or at Penn’s instigation. Could have even been Penn themselves. We just don’t know, but the timing and the delay both make it look suspicious.

Could Penn have swept it under the rug? In her lawsuit she is claiming tortious interference by Penn. we’ll see if that holds up.

Concerns about academic integrity are always about making the school look bad.

[Anonymous]

Could Penn have swept it under the rug? Maybe.

Could she have just had integrity and refrained from lying in the first place? Most definitely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could Penn have swept it under the rug? Maybe.

Could she have just had integrity and refrained from lying in the first place? Most definitely.

It’s not proven that she lied. These universities and colleges bureaucracies are know to be petty and incompetent. Look at how they treat rape victims. She most likely crossed a professor or maybe did not kiss his a$# enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could Penn have swept it under the rug? Maybe.

Could she have just had integrity and refrained from lying in the first place? Most definitely.

I think Penn was ethically bound to pass along the information they received lest they be a party to fraud. It was going to come out in the newspapers sooner or later. Right now Penn doesn't look good for even admitting her as FGLI in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could Penn have swept it under the rug? Maybe.

Could she have just had integrity and refrained from lying in the first place? Most definitely.

It’s not proven that she lied. These universities and colleges bureaucracies are know to be petty and incompetent. Look at how they treat rape victims. She most likely crossed a professor or maybe did not kiss his a$# enough.

Let's take it to court and find out. That should clarify things pretty quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could Penn have swept it under the rug? Maybe.

Could she have just had integrity and refrained from lying in the first place? Most definitely.

It’s not proven that she lied. These universities and colleges bureaucracies are know to be petty and incompetent. Look at how they treat rape victims. She most likely crossed a professor or maybe did not kiss his a$# enough.

Let's take it to court and find out. That should clarify things pretty quickly.

Exactly. Let’s depose some people under oath and get to the truth of her allegations against UPenn. Right now both sides are “holier than thou.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could Penn have swept it under the rug? Maybe.

Could she have just had integrity and refrained from lying in the first place? Most definitely.

It’s not proven that she lied. These universities and colleges bureaucracies are know to be petty and incompetent. Look at how they treat rape victims. She most likely crossed a professor or maybe did not kiss his a$# enough.

Let's take it to court and find out. That should clarify things pretty quickly.

Exactly. Let’s depose some people under oath and get to the truth of her allegations against UPenn. Right now both sides are “holier than thou.”

Penn: "We're shocked, shocked to find she didn't really have to overcome the adversity she claimed!"

[Anonymous]

PP, someone giving a bald-faced lie is shocking, as it should be.

[Anonymous]

Penn changed their “first generation in college” guidelines in 2020. I wonder if the Dean suspected something and re write it to CHA.

[Anonymous]

I’m so fascinated by this I read the court documents. Very illuminating. Starting at page 69 is a good idea but the real interesting part is the add on ending pages. A lot is explained there. How she learned to use teachers and others to report abuse. How her father and mother had a painful divorce when she was 8. How her temper was unusually strong and violent. Etc etc.
Really read it yourself. This is just some except thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Penn changed their “first generation in college” guidelines in 2020. I wonder if the Dean suspected something and re write it to CHA.

Was that before or after the news about Fierceton came out? Is there a linK?