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

[Anonymous]

As far as her case against UPENN they were actually generous.

[Anonymous]

Penn's definition of FLGI is only relevant to the masters degree, not the Rhodes. Rhodes uses their own definition that isn't as broad as Penns, and under that, she clearly lied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Used teachers?

Hmm!

That’s an insane take!

An abused child telling teachers and counselors about it at 8 is her “using” them? Try again crazy lady.

[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.

She lied to Rhodes, which doesn't use the first generation definition that Penn does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it so depressing that people are falling all over themselves to punish someone who was estranged from both parents at 17 and went into foster care. Her coming from an upper-middle-class background doesn't mean that she wasn't deeply traumatized by what happened to her.

I think the Chronicle article is even-handed and on point: the application essay was written from that traumatized 17-year-old's perspective, and by Penn's standards, Fierceton qualified to identify as a "first-generation" student. Penn comes off really quite badly in my view, in its rush to publicize Fierceton's story and its punitive attitude.

If you believe her side of the story. But we haven't heard from them mom. Or the prosecutor who looked into the charges. Nor seen the hospital records. She's alleging Penn conducted a "sham" investigation, and a "bogus" investigation, but there's no reason they wouldn't want to claim her as a Rhodes Scholar - and the President did laud her in a speech as very deserving - a speech given long after the basement incident. Sorry, if I have to balance the credibility of the parties, Penn comes out better than she does.

No .. you can just believe Penn’s report.

She is emancipated
She was in foster care
She aged out of foster care
She lived with multiple families
She was in the hospital 22 days
The divorce was contentious
Authorities were called 7 time
Her father was estranged after the divorce
She doesn’t speak to her mom
Her grandparents didn’t take her in when removed from the family home

Hmmm. You left out that the Rhodes Committee doesn't believe she was first-generation/low income or injured nearly as badly as she claimed. I guess you think they didn't investigate the matter thoroughly enough?

I didn’t leave anything out I just stated facts from Penn’s investigation.

You once again are bringing in opinion about facts that have not been presented.

Try just talking facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it so depressing that people are falling all over themselves to punish someone who was estranged from both parents at 17 and went into foster care. Her coming from an upper-middle-class background doesn't mean that she wasn't deeply traumatized by what happened to her.

I think the Chronicle article is even-handed and on point: the application essay was written from that traumatized 17-year-old's perspective, and by Penn's standards, Fierceton qualified to identify as a "first-generation" student. Penn comes off really quite badly in my view, in its rush to publicize Fierceton's story and its punitive attitude.

You do understand she sued them, right? Not the other way around?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it so depressing that people are falling all over themselves to punish someone who was estranged from both parents at 17 and went into foster care. Her coming from an upper-middle-class background doesn't mean that she wasn't deeply traumatized by what happened to her.

I think the Chronicle article is even-handed and on point: the application essay was written from that traumatized 17-year-old's perspective, and by Penn's standards, Fierceton qualified to identify as a "first-generation" student. Penn comes off really quite badly in my view, in its rush to publicize Fierceton's story and its punitive attitude.

If you believe her side of the story. But we haven't heard from them mom. Or the prosecutor who looked into the charges. Nor seen the hospital records. She's alleging Penn conducted a "sham" investigation, and a "bogus" investigation, but there's no reason they wouldn't want to claim her as a Rhodes Scholar - and the President did laud her in a speech as very deserving - a speech given long after the basement incident. Sorry, if I have to balance the credibility of the parties, Penn comes out better than she does.

No .. you can just believe Penn’s report.

She is emancipated
She was in foster care
She aged out of foster care
She lived with multiple families
She was in the hospital 22 days
The divorce was contentious
Authorities were called 7 time
Her father was estranged after the divorce
She doesn’t speak to her mom
Her grandparents didn’t take her in when removed from the family home

Hmmm. You left out that the Rhodes Committee doesn't believe she was first-generation/low income or injured nearly as badly as she claimed. I guess you think they didn't investigate the matter thoroughly enough?

I didn’t leave anything out I just stated facts from Penn’s investigation.

You once again are bringing in opinion about facts that have not been presented.

Try just talking facts.

? It's a fact the Rhodes Committee didn't believe her story. You have a different view, but you're not the one making that decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it so depressing that people are falling all over themselves to punish someone who was estranged from both parents at 17 and went into foster care. Her coming from an upper-middle-class background doesn't mean that she wasn't deeply traumatized by what happened to her.

I think the Chronicle article is even-handed and on point: the application essay was written from that traumatized 17-year-old's perspective, and by Penn's standards, Fierceton qualified to identify as a "first-generation" student. Penn comes off really quite badly in my view, in its rush to publicize Fierceton's story and its punitive attitude.

If you believe her side of the story. But we haven't heard from them mom. Or the prosecutor who looked into the charges. Nor seen the hospital records. She's alleging Penn conducted a "sham" investigation, and a "bogus" investigation, but there's no reason they wouldn't want to claim her as a Rhodes Scholar - and the President did laud her in a speech as very deserving - a speech given long after the basement incident. Sorry, if I have to balance the credibility of the parties, Penn comes out better than she does.

No .. you can just believe Penn’s report.

She is emancipated
She was in foster care
She aged out of foster care
She lived with multiple families
She was in the hospital 22 days
The divorce was contentious
Authorities were called 7 time
Her father was estranged after the divorce
She doesn’t speak to her mom
Her grandparents didn’t take her in when removed from the family home

Hmmm. You left out that the Rhodes Committee doesn't believe she was first-generation/low income or injured nearly as badly as she claimed. I guess you think they didn't investigate the matter thoroughly enough?

I didn’t leave anything out I just stated facts from Penn’s investigation.

You once again are bringing in opinion about facts that have not been presented.

Try just talking facts.

DP. You need to start talking facts, which includes admitting that what you listed above is clearly laid out in Penns report as what she claims, not undisputed facts.

The truth will come out in litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it so depressing that people are falling all over themselves to punish someone who was estranged from both parents at 17 and went into foster care. Her coming from an upper-middle-class background doesn't mean that she wasn't deeply traumatized by what happened to her.

I think the Chronicle article is even-handed and on point: the application essay was written from that traumatized 17-year-old's perspective, and by Penn's standards, Fierceton qualified to identify as a "first-generation" student. Penn comes off really quite badly in my view, in its rush to publicize Fierceton's story and its punitive attitude.

If you believe her side of the story. But we haven't heard from them mom. Or the prosecutor who looked into the charges. Nor seen the hospital records. She's alleging Penn conducted a "sham" investigation, and a "bogus" investigation, but there's no reason they wouldn't want to claim her as a Rhodes Scholar - and the President did laud her in a speech as very deserving - a speech given long after the basement incident. Sorry, if I have to balance the credibility of the parties, Penn comes out better than she does.

No .. you can just believe Penn’s report.

She is emancipated
She was in foster care
She aged out of foster care
She lived with multiple families
She was in the hospital 22 days
The divorce was contentious
Authorities were called 7 time
Her father was estranged after the divorce
She doesn’t speak to her mom
Her grandparents didn’t take her in when removed from the family home

Hmmm. You left out that the Rhodes Committee doesn't believe she was first-generation/low income or injured nearly as badly as she claimed. I guess you think they didn't investigate the matter thoroughly enough?

I didn’t leave anything out I just stated facts from Penn’s investigation.

You once again are bringing in opinion about facts that have not been presented.

Try just talking facts.

? It's a fact the Rhodes Committee didn't believe her story. You have a different view, but you're not the one making that decision.

Yes that is a fact Rhodes asked her to remove her application, why beside a vague “didn’t believe her” is unknown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it so depressing that people are falling all over themselves to punish someone who was estranged from both parents at 17 and went into foster care. Her coming from an upper-middle-class background doesn't mean that she wasn't deeply traumatized by what happened to her.

I think the Chronicle article is even-handed and on point: the application essay was written from that traumatized 17-year-old's perspective, and by Penn's standards, Fierceton qualified to identify as a "first-generation" student. Penn comes off really quite badly in my view, in its rush to publicize Fierceton's story and its punitive attitude.

If you believe her side of the story. But we haven't heard from them mom. Or the prosecutor who looked into the charges. Nor seen the hospital records. She's alleging Penn conducted a "sham" investigation, and a "bogus" investigation, but there's no reason they wouldn't want to claim her as a Rhodes Scholar - and the President did laud her in a speech as very deserving - a speech given long after the basement incident. Sorry, if I have to balance the credibility of the parties, Penn comes out better than she does.

No .. you can just believe Penn’s report.

She is emancipated
She was in foster care
She aged out of foster care
She lived with multiple families
She was in the hospital 22 days
The divorce was contentious
Authorities were called 7 time
Her father was estranged after the divorce
She doesn’t speak to her mom
Her grandparents didn’t take her in when removed from the family home

Hmmm. You left out that the Rhodes Committee doesn't believe she was first-generation/low income or injured nearly as badly as she claimed. I guess you think they didn't investigate the matter thoroughly enough?

I didn’t leave anything out I just stated facts from Penn’s investigation.

You once again are bringing in opinion about facts that have not been presented.

Try just talking facts.

DP. You need to start talking facts, which includes admitting that what you listed above is clearly laid out in Penns report as what she claims, not undisputed facts.

The truth will come out in litigation.

Those are actually things Penn stated they verified.

There are “other things” they stated that they believed were not true.

The list above are things Penn said are true. Why would they lie?

[Anonymous]

Why wouldn't this rise to the level of criminal fraud? If you steal six-figure from your job you're led out in handcuffs. She seems to have stolen a BA, MA, and nearly a Oxford MA or PhD all allegedly under false pretenses, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes. I found it a fascinating read as well. It’s a great source of facts spas long as one keeps in mind that it is part of Penn’s response to the lawsuit and is in part slanted by that fact. It is the university’s POV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why wouldn't this rise to the level of criminal fraud? If you steal six-figure from your job you're led out in handcuffs. She seems to have stolen a BA, MA, and nearly a Oxford MA or PhD all allegedly under false pretenses, no?

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it so depressing that people are falling all over themselves to punish someone who was estranged from both parents at 17 and went into foster care. Her coming from an upper-middle-class background doesn't mean that she wasn't deeply traumatized by what happened to her.

I think the Chronicle article is even-handed and on point: the application essay was written from that traumatized 17-year-old's perspective, and by Penn's standards, Fierceton qualified to identify as a "first-generation" student. Penn comes off really quite badly in my view, in its rush to publicize Fierceton's story and its punitive attitude.

If you believe her side of the story. But we haven't heard from them mom. Or the prosecutor who looked into the charges. Nor seen the hospital records. She's alleging Penn conducted a "sham" investigation, and a "bogus" investigation, but there's no reason they wouldn't want to claim her as a Rhodes Scholar - and the President did laud her in a speech as very deserving - a speech given long after the basement incident. Sorry, if I have to balance the credibility of the parties, Penn comes out better than she does.

No .. you can just believe Penn’s report.

She is emancipated
She was in foster care
She aged out of foster care
She lived with multiple families
She was in the hospital 22 days
The divorce was contentious
Authorities were called 7 time
Her father was estranged after the divorce
She doesn’t speak to her mom
Her grandparents didn’t take her in when removed from the family home

Hmmm. You left out that the Rhodes Committee doesn't believe she was first-generation/low income or injured nearly as badly as she claimed. I guess you think they didn't investigate the matter thoroughly enough?

I didn’t leave anything out I just stated facts from Penn’s investigation.

You once again are bringing in opinion about facts that have not been presented.

Try just talking facts.

DP. You need to start talking facts, which includes admitting that what you listed above is clearly laid out in Penns report as what she claims, not undisputed facts.

The truth will come out in litigation.

Those are actually things Penn stated they verified.

There are “other things” they stated that they believed were not true.

The list above are things Penn said are true. Why would they lie?

Oh,I don’t know. Large wealthy institutions never lie and never operate out of self-interest. And if they say they verified something, then that must be the case because they would never slant or misrepresent anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Used teachers?

Hmm!

That’s an insane take!

An abused child telling teachers and counselors about it at 8 is her “using” them? Try again crazy lady.

Calm down and read some facts. You will feel better. Lot of speculation with no facts here.