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: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.

It is also a fact that she was bullied into declining the Rhodes Scholarship by Penn’s general counsel Wendy White with the threat of rescinding her bachelor’s degree in addition withholding her master’s as well as other unspecified actions if she didn’t decline the Rhodes.

[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.

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.

It is. But they use facts. Fierceton is a master of fiction. And actually Penn was pretty lenient. Considering what she did. Also Penn had an obligation to inform the Rhodes committee as they had put Fierceton forward. But there is no arguing with the poor poor Fierceton crowd. Facts? Facts? Don’t present facts …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Those are the facts in the world according to UPenn. Did you not read their response?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It is. But they use facts. Fierceton is a master of fiction. And actually Penn was pretty lenient. Considering what she did. Also Penn had an obligation to inform the Rhodes committee as they had put Fierceton forward. But there is no arguing with the poor poor Fierceton crowd. Facts? Facts? Don’t present facts …

Penn presented their version of the facts, some of which are not facts at all. Others are presented in a way that completely slants the picture. Finally, Penn presents itself as an innocent and maligned by-stander who was part of this saga from the very beginning.

Being insulting doesn’t strengthen your case. It just makes you appear childish. Penn has not been lenient at all. They have treated one of their best students horribly. I don’t see where you are presenting any facts. “Master of fiction”, “pretty lenient”, “poor poor Fierceton crowd” are all your opinion, not facts.

[Anonymous]

Not to make a long blue quote but Fierceton was not bullied into withdrawing from the Rhodes. They had made their decision. It was more like HR saying would you like to resign or should we fire you? She violated their rules and ethics and it was over. It was the Rhodes decision.

[Anonymous]

Fierceton was not one of UPenns best students. As a former college professor I can tell you there is considerable pressure to grade easy on the first gen students. It’s also pretty insulting to the OTHER Penn students who got in on their merits and DIDNT break honor code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is. But they use facts. Fierceton is a master of fiction.

Also Penn had an obligation to inform the Rhodes committee as they had put Fierceton forward.

Is that a fact? In their submission, Penn says they had a “duty” to inform Rhodes. Is that the same as an “obligation”?

Anyway my issue is the fact that Penn withheld the fact that they “informed” Rhodes from Fierceton for almost a month after they had done it. Why? Didn’t they also have a duty or obligation to their student to be transparent about something that so powerfully and personally affected her? Coincidentally during that month Penn did contact her biological mother, her former abuser, without telling her. Why was it that they could contact her mother but couldn’t contact her? Colleges are specifically prohibited from discussing student records or any other of the student’s business with parents or anyone else without the student’s permission. They had no permission from MF in this case, making it illegal. Penn’s behaviour with regard to their handling of this case is completely fraught with conflicts of interest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fierceton was not one of UPenns best students. As a former college professor I can tell you there is considerable pressure to grade easy on the first gen students. It’s also pretty insulting to the OTHER Penn students who got in on their merits and DIDNT break honor code.

Unless you were a professor at Penn or have intimate knowledge of the practices at Penn, you have no standing to make the statement that she was not one of their best students. They nominated her for a Rhodes Scholarship but she’s not one of their best students? Then they are completely unethical and are not to be trusted in anything they do, including this case.

[Anonymous]

PP, people can wave around whatever it is you are waiving around until they are all blue in the face, but it doesn't matter. Many people are never going to hear the name "Fierceton" without thinking "cheating scandal."

It doesn't matter whether anyone here can prove anything to your liking. You are irrelevant (and so am I). What matters, if she pursues it, is the final ruling. That isn't likely to go well for her, but sure, maybe. Have to wait and see.

If she doesn't pursue it, maybe people will forget in time. Who knows?

But nobody is ever going to hear "Fierceton" and think, "oh yeah! that brilliant and tormented soul who totally deserved her Rhodes scholarship," because she never is going to get a Rhodes scholarship now. Sad.

[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?

Penn’s report is p. 100 here:

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

The facts that Penn stated as background start on p. 104. Penn’s analysis of the facts related to her time in foster care start on p. 119.

I think the PP is the weirdly delusional Fierceton defender who lives in an imaginary world. But the rest of you can read the report yourselves.

[Anonymous]

Here’s the rebuttal to many of the issues that have been raised here. It’s written by MF’s faculty advisers who have intimate knowledge both of MF’s situation and of UPenn’s internal policies and procedures. They are Anne Norton and Rogers Smith.

[url]https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/penns-treatment-of-mackenzie-fierceton-has-been-shameful?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in[url]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the rebuttal to many of the issues that have been raised here. It’s written by MF’s faculty advisers who have intimate knowledge both of MF’s situation and of UPenn’s internal policies and procedures. They are Anne Norton and Rogers Smith.

[url]https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/penns-treatment-of-mackenzie-fierceton-has-been-shameful?cid2=gen_login_refresh&cid=gen_sign_in[url]

I don’t know why my link won’t highlight and connect. If someone can fix it, I’d appreciate it. Or you can type it in on the address bar as posted here. It does work if you do that.

[Anonymous]

Here you go.

https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/penns-treatment-of-mackenzie-fierceton-has-been-shameful

I read it. A lot of words, not a lot of concrete rebuttal.

The truth will come out in the litigation at this point, which is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Impressed by her colorful imagination …. But Rhodes scholarship and UPenn made the right call. Rhodes scholarships are incredibly prestigious and highly competitive honors …

Fierceton’s story is probably destined to become a movie plot and possibly a Broadway musical: possible titles- Ivy Mask/ Varsity Bluffer/ U Penn Pretender/ College Charlatan.

In the right hands, telling her story could illuminate the insanity of US College application and admission processes, flesh out Fierecton’s humanity as well as manipulations and be entertaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Impressed by her colorful imagination …. But Rhodes scholarship and UPenn made the right call. Rhodes scholarships are incredibly prestigious and highly competitive honors …

Fierceton’s story is probably destined to become a movie plot and possibly a Broadway musical: possible titles- Ivy Mask/ Varsity Bluffer/ U Penn Pretender/ College Charlatan.

In the right hands, telling her story could illuminate the insanity of US College application and admission processes, flesh out Fierecton’s humanity as well as manipulations and be entertaining.

yes, will take its place alongside the Lori Laughlin college admission scadal and the Jackie U.Va. rape hoax. All fell apart once the media started asking a few questions

I do honestly wonder though if Fierceton could have gotten into Penn and/or won a Rhodes Scholarship by playing it straight and not embellishing her story.