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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Unprofessional of the Penn professors. Penn didn't do this on a lark. You know the school is going to get bad press and be sued. They and their outside counsel dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" before deciding with withdraw the diploma The trial lawyers can say whatever they want (because they want a $$ settlement) and the PA professors can do whatever they want for attention and notoriety. Undergrad profs are especially known for jumping too early on a bandwagon to side with an alleged victim before knowing the truth. See UVA Rolling Stone case (faculty sides with woman who made the story up); Duke Lacrosse Gang of 88 (faculty sides with lying "victim" against frats); Occidental College sexual assault controversy (faculty was actually sleeping with and providing information to fired L.A. Times Reporter).

This is completely ridiculous.

1. No evidence that the Penn professors want attention and notoriety. They each have 40+ years of college teaching. They are at the end of their careers. They don’t need the attention. In addition, they each hold an endowed chair at Penn. One is a department head and the other was a Pulitzer Prize finalist. Both are experts in their respective fields of wide repute. Their careers are well established, so neither needs the limelight to be recognized. BTW, I don’t think you know what the word “notoriety” means.

2. What undergrad are especially known for is completely irrelevant. We’re not talking about undergrad profs in general; we’re talking about 2 specific undergrad profs. There’s absolutely no evidence that these 2 particular undergrad profs are known for jumping on anything too early.

These are completely baseless allegations on your part. Your statements are just absurd.

No the assumption that the professors know anything about this matter or should be involved at all is absurd. Leave the matter up to the board, the administrators and the lawyers. Undergrad profs don’t have a clue what is going on here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They put poor Black people in prison if they steal $1,000. This privileged brat stole at the very least a six-figure scholarship she didn’t qualify for. She should be in jail.

Nonsense. She hasn’t stolen anything. No one forced Penn to accept her for admission. No one forced them to nominate her for the Rhodes Scholarship. No one forced them to go over the top and exaggerate her background in promoting her Rhodes achievement.

MF never hid from Penn the fact that she went to an expensive private school. They had all of that information. If they’re now complaining about her background, they’re simply saying that they didn’t do their due diligence. Private schools like the one in this case are very, very involved with their students’ college applications and will provide any background information that the university requires. If Penn had questioned any inconsistencies in her story about being poor yet attending an expensive private school, all they had to do was to pick up the phone and ask. The school would have known her background inside and out.

Penn freakin’ nominated her for the Rhodes. Nominated! It was their job to vet her if they were going to nominate her. It was their job to dig into her background and make sure the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed BEFORE they endorsed her application. By nominating her, they were saying that they knew who she was and what her accomplishments were, that they were certifying her as a candidate. If they failed to do their job properly, that’s on them. No one else. But now they’re trying to shift blame and wash their hands I’d pa any responsibility. They’re responsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Unprofessional of the Penn professors. Penn didn't do this on a lark. You know the school is going to get bad press and be sued. They and their outside counsel dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" before deciding with withdraw the diploma The trial lawyers can say whatever they want (because they want a $$ settlement) and the PA professors can do whatever they want for attention and notoriety. Undergrad profs are especially known for jumping too early on a bandwagon to side with an alleged victim before knowing the truth. See UVA Rolling Stone case (faculty sides with woman who made the story up); Duke Lacrosse Gang of 88 (faculty sides with lying "victim" against frats); Occidental College sexual assault controversy (faculty was actually sleeping with and providing information to fired L.A. Times Reporter).

This is completely ridiculous.

1. No evidence that the Penn professors want attention and notoriety. They each have 40+ years of college teaching. They are at the end of their careers. They don’t need the attention. In addition, they each hold an endowed chair at Penn. One is a department head and the other was a Pulitzer Prize finalist. Both are experts in their respective fields of wide repute. Their careers are well established, so neither needs the limelight to be recognized. BTW, I don’t think you know what the word “notoriety” means.

2. What undergrad are especially known for is completely irrelevant. We’re not talking about undergrad profs in general; we’re talking about 2 specific undergrad profs. There’s absolutely no evidence that these 2 particular undergrad profs are known for jumping on anything too early.

These are completely baseless allegations on your part. Your statements are just absurd.

No the assumption that the professors know anything about this matter or should be involved at all is absurd. Leave the matter up to the board, the administrators and the lawyers. Undergrad profs don’t have a clue what is going on here

It’s not an assumption that the professors know this case. Both are long standing members of the Penn faculty and know the university’s policies and procedures intimately. One is a former college administrator with relevant experience and the other is currently a department head. One is her designated advisor by Penn’s own OFC process and the other has been her mentor, thereby having personal knowledge of her.

It’s actually the Board who doesn’t have a clue here. Why would anyone rely on them? They only know what the administration tells them. The administration has botched this case from the beginning, from hyping and exaggerating claims about her in press releases to failing to follow the university’s own policies and procedures. The lawyers? Please. They are hired guns, paid mouthpieces to say or do whatever the administration pays them to say or do. They are not truth seekers. That’s not their job. Why in the world would anyone rely on them of all,people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think that the discussion about this would be very different if Fierceton wasn't a young white woman. I think she is getting a lot of assumption of good intent and that she is telling the truth that would not be given to a similar person who wasn't a young, white, attractive woman.

Blacks are thrown in prison for FAR less than this rich brat.

No they aren’t. And she’s no rich. In fact, she has no money. No idea how this becomes a racial issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They put poor Black people in prison if they steal $1,000. This privileged brat stole at the very least a six-figure scholarship she didn’t qualify for. She should be in jail.

Nonsense. She hasn’t stolen anything. No one forced Penn to accept her for admission. No one forced them to nominate her for the Rhodes Scholarship. No one forced them to go over the top and exaggerate her background in promoting her Rhodes achievement.

MF never hid from Penn the fact that she went to an expensive private school. They had all of that information. If they’re now complaining about her background, they’re simply saying that they didn’t do their due diligence. Private schools like the one in this case are very, very involved with their students’ college applications and will provide any background information that the university requires. If Penn had questioned any inconsistencies in her story about being poor yet attending an expensive private school, all they had to do was to pick up the phone and ask. The school would have known her background inside and out.

Penn freakin’ nominated her for the Rhodes. Nominated! It was their job to vet her if they were going to nominate her. It was their job to dig into her background and make sure the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed BEFORE they endorsed her application. By nominating her, they were saying that they knew who she was and what her accomplishments were, that they were certifying her as a candidate. If they failed to do their job properly, that’s on them. No one else. But now they’re trying to shift blame and wash their hands I’d pa any responsibility. They’re responsible.

I agree that she shouldn't be in jail, but this is a bit lacking in nuance. Yes, no one forced Penn to accept her for admission and Penn clearly didn't do their due diligence in this case, because like you said they obviously had the information that she went to an expensive private school and could have questioned any inconsistencies at the time of admission.

Their lack of due diligence would prevent them from filing any kind of civil case against her. A criminal case is not going to happen and should not happen because:

1. Her high school academic track record was stellar and she had at least decent ECs, so she had a reasonable chance of getting into Penn anyway even if her background was exaggerated or embellished. Proving that any exaggerations or embellishments about her background were decisive in her admission beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law is not realistic, and prosecutors don't take weak cases. Secondarily, she did well academically at Penn, so she was also qualified in that sense.

2. Given that she had a reasonable chance of being admitted regardless and did well academically at Penn as stated in 1), the remaining question is whether her financial aid applications were honest. While she had a well off mother, she went through the foster care system (that's a proven fact) and thus could legally define herself as separated from her family and thus low-income. Thus, defining herself as low income and without significant financial resources was legal on her FAFSA and her Questbridge applications. She may have exaggerated or embellished other aspects of her background, but she did have the right to represent herself as low-income.

Given 1 and 2 above, what civil or criminal case do you think Penn has here? They have a weak civil case at best because of their glaring lack of due diligence, and even in a civil case for fraud with the lower "clear and convincing evidence" standard, I'm doubtful that a lawyer could prove that any exaggerations or embellishments she made were decisive in her admission, given that she had a stellar academic track record both in high school and later in college. Penn would also have to prove losses in a civil case for fraud, and it's not clear that they've lost anything given that she was a good student at Penn.

The criminal case is off the table for the reasons listed in 1) and because of the much higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, where a prosecutor would have to prove that 1) her exaggerations were decisive or material in her admission 2) that Penn suffered losses as a result of her misrepresentations and 3) that she was not allowed to represent herself as low-income. I don't think any of those points could be argued at the clear and convincing standard, much less the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

That said, given what I read of Rhodes and Penn's investigation, I think she should lose the Rhodes. She seems to have exaggerated enough aspects of her story that she does not deserve to be a Rhodes scholar (though I agree that Penn didn't do their due diligence here either).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Unprofessional of the Penn professors. Penn didn't do this on a lark. You know the school is going to get bad press and be sued. They and their outside counsel dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" before deciding with withdraw the diploma The trial lawyers can say whatever they want (because they want a $$ settlement) and the PA professors can do whatever they want for attention and notoriety. Undergrad profs are especially known for jumping too early on a bandwagon to side with an alleged victim before knowing the truth. See UVA Rolling Stone case (faculty sides with woman who made the story up); Duke Lacrosse Gang of 88 (faculty sides with lying "victim" against frats); Occidental College sexual assault controversy (faculty was actually sleeping with and providing information to fired L.A. Times Reporter).

This is completely ridiculous.

1. No evidence that the Penn professors want attention and notoriety. They each have 40+ years of college teaching. They are at the end of their careers. They don’t need the attention. In addition, they each hold an endowed chair at Penn. One is a department head and the other was a Pulitzer Prize finalist. Both are experts in their respective fields of wide repute. Their careers are well established, so neither needs the limelight to be recognized. BTW, I don’t think you know what the word “notoriety” means.

2. What undergrad are especially known for is completely irrelevant. We’re not talking about undergrad profs in general; we’re talking about 2 specific undergrad profs. There’s absolutely no evidence that these 2 particular undergrad profs are known for jumping on anything too early.

These are completely baseless allegations on your part. Your statements are just absurd.

No the assumption that the professors know anything about this matter or should be involved at all is absurd. Leave the matter up to the board, the administrators and the lawyers. Undergrad profs don’t have a clue what is going on here

It’s not an assumption that the professors know this case. Both are long standing members of the Penn faculty and know the university’s policies and procedures intimately. One is a former college administrator with relevant experience and the other is currently a department head. One is her designated advisor by Penn’s own OFC process and the other has been her mentor, thereby having personal knowledge of her.

It’s actually the Board who doesn’t have a clue here. Why would anyone rely on them? They only know what the administration tells them. The administration has botched this case from the beginning, from hyping and exaggerating claims about her in press releases to failing to follow the university’s own policies and procedures. The lawyers? Please. They are hired guns, paid mouthpieces to say or do whatever the administration pays them to say or do. They are not truth seekers. That’s not their job. Why in the world would anyone rely on them of all,people?

You are wrong on this but it’s not worth my time to squabble over this with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think that the discussion about this would be very different if Fierceton wasn't a young white woman. I think she is getting a lot of assumption of good intent and that she is telling the truth that would not be given to a similar person who wasn't a young, white, attractive woman.

Blacks are thrown in prison for FAR less than this rich brat.

No they aren’t. And she’s no rich. In fact, she has no money. No idea how this becomes a racial issue.

It’s not a racial issue except for the observation that if Fierceton wasn’t a young attractive white woman, she likely would have not been given as much benefit of the doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you assumed, which is always a mistake. And now you're assuming again, based on a story from a poster who admittedly doesn't have all the facts and who is obviously telling the mother's side of the story. So, you're making the same mistake again by assuming a second time. You're hearing what you want to hear. Read the response to the Penn allegations by the 2 Penn senior profs who are advising her, linked on page 40.

I've read it all. The Penn profs don't know anything at all about her background. The DA looked into it pretty extensively and wasn't able to corroborate anything she said about being pushed down the stairs. So did she fall 2 or 3 steps down padded stairs like the mom claims or not? Thus story will unravel, and Penn did the right thing by not letting it go any further. More stories like this will come out.

This. Unprofessional of the Penn professors. I practiced Education Law. Penn didn't do this on a lark. You know the school is going to get bad press and be sued. They and their outside counsel dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" before deciding with withdraw the diploma The trial lawyers can say whatever they want (because they want a $$ settlement) and the PA professors can do whatever they want for attention and notoriety. Undergrad profs are especially known for jumping too early on a bandwagon to side with an alleged victim before knowing the truth. See UVA Rolling Stone case (faculty sides with woman who made the story up); Duke Lacrosse Gang of 88 (faculty sides with lying "victim" against frats); Occidental College sexual assault controversy (faculty was actually sleeping with and providing information to fired L.A. Times Reporter).

It is true that faculty support statements have a long and inglorious history of being spectacularly wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think that the discussion about this would be very different if Fierceton wasn't a young white woman. I think she is getting a lot of assumption of good intent and that she is telling the truth that would not be given to a similar person who wasn't a young, white, attractive woman.

Blacks are thrown in prison for FAR less than this rich brat.

No they aren’t. And she’s no rich. In fact, she has no money. No idea how this becomes a racial issue.

It’s not a racial issue except for the observation that if Fierceton wasn’t a young attractive white woman, she likely would have not been given as much benefit of the doubt.

They probably targeted her because she was white. If her biological family was rich/white, the abuse had to be pretty bad to get into foster care and for the parents not to win fighting it or they didn't fight it, which is equally bad. She was in foster care, she was abused. She was not rich if she was in foster care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think that the discussion about this would be very different if Fierceton wasn't a young white woman. I think she is getting a lot of assumption of good intent and that she is telling the truth that would not be given to a similar person who wasn't a young, white, attractive woman.

Blacks are thrown in prison for FAR less than this rich brat.

No they aren’t. And she’s no rich. In fact, she has no money. No idea how this becomes a racial issue.

It’s not a racial issue except for the observation that if Fierceton wasn’t a young attractive white woman, she likely would have not been given as much benefit of the doubt.

They probably targeted her because she was white. If her biological family was rich/white, the abuse had to be pretty bad to get into foster care and for the parents not to win fighting it or they didn't fight it, which is equally bad. She was in foster care, she was abused. She was not rich if she was in foster care.

Wait, what? Specifically who targeted Fierceton, the plaintiff in the lawsuit? And you are seriously claiming that whoever “targeted” her (whatever that means) did it because she is white? You’re going to have to explain that nonsense with a few more facts that have some grounding in reality, my friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you assumed, which is always a mistake. And now you're assuming again, based on a story from a poster who admittedly doesn't have all the facts and who is obviously telling the mother's side of the story. So, you're making the same mistake again by assuming a second time. You're hearing what you want to hear. Read the response to the Penn allegations by the 2 Penn senior profs who are advising her, linked on page 40.

I've read it all. The Penn profs don't know anything at all about her background. The DA looked into it pretty extensively and wasn't able to corroborate anything she said about being pushed down the stairs. So did she fall 2 or 3 steps down padded stairs like the mom claims or not? Thus story will unravel, and Penn did the right thing by not letting it go any further. More stories like this will come out.

This. Unprofessional of the Penn professors. I practiced Education Law. Penn didn't do this on a lark. You know the school is going to get bad press and be sued. They and their outside counsel dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" before deciding with withdraw the diploma The trial lawyers can say whatever they want (because they want a $$ settlement) and the PA professors can do whatever they want for attention and notoriety. Undergrad profs are especially known for jumping too early on a bandwagon to side with an alleged victim before knowing the truth. See UVA Rolling Stone case (faculty sides with woman who made the story up); Duke Lacrosse Gang of 88 (faculty sides with lying "victim" against frats); Occidental College sexual assault controversy (faculty was actually sleeping with and providing information to fired L.A. Times Reporter).

It is true that faculty support statements have a long and inglorious history of being spectacularly wrong.

What does that have to do with this case specifically? Seems totally irrelevant unless someone can make a case about these 2 profs in particular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do think that the discussion about this would be very different if Fierceton wasn't a young white woman. I think she is getting a lot of assumption of good intent and that she is telling the truth that would not be given to a similar person who wasn't a young, white, attractive woman.

Blacks are thrown in prison for FAR less than this rich brat.

No they aren’t. And she’s no rich. In fact, she has no money. No idea how this becomes a racial issue.

It’s not a racial issue except for the observation that if Fierceton wasn’t a young attractive white woman, she likely would have not been given as much benefit of the doubt.

So what?

We all know about the inequities in society. But really this case sits on its own merits or lack of merit. And what benefit of the doubt has she been given? None by Penn. and people on this forum are piling on her like she’s an axe murderer or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They put poor Black people in prison if they steal $1,000. This privileged brat stole at the very least a six-figure scholarship she didn’t qualify for. She should be in jail.

Nonsense. She hasn’t stolen anything. No one forced Penn to accept her for admission. No one forced them to nominate her for the Rhodes Scholarship. No one forced them to go over the top and exaggerate her background in promoting her Rhodes achievement.

MF never hid from Penn the fact that she went to an expensive private school. They had all of that information. If they’re now complaining about her background, they’re simply saying that they didn’t do their due diligence. Private schools like the one in this case are very, very involved with their students’ college applications and will provide any background information that the university requires. If Penn had questioned any inconsistencies in her story about being poor yet attending an expensive private school, all they had to do was to pick up the phone and ask. The school would have known her background inside and out.

Penn freakin’ nominated her for the Rhodes. Nominated! It was their job to vet her if they were going to nominate her. It was their job to dig into her background and make sure the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed BEFORE they endorsed her application. By nominating her, they were saying that they knew who she was and what her accomplishments were, that they were certifying her as a candidate. If they failed to do their job properly, that’s on them. No one else. But now they’re trying to shift blame and wash their hands I’d pa any responsibility. They’re responsible.

I agree that she shouldn't be in jail, but this is a bit lacking in nuance. Yes, no one forced Penn to accept her for admission and Penn clearly didn't do their due diligence in this case, because like you said they obviously had the information that she went to an expensive private school and could have questioned any inconsistencies at the time of admission.

Their lack of due diligence would prevent them from filing any kind of civil case against her. A criminal case is not going to happen and should not happen because:

1. Her high school academic track record was stellar and she had at least decent ECs, so she had a reasonable chance of getting into Penn anyway even if her background was exaggerated or embellished. Proving that any exaggerations or embellishments about her background were decisive in her admission beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law is not realistic, and prosecutors don't take weak cases. Secondarily, she did well academically at Penn, so she was also qualified in that sense.

2. Given that she had a reasonable chance of being admitted regardless and did well academically at Penn as stated in 1), the remaining question is whether her financial aid applications were honest. While she had a well off mother, she went through the foster care system (that's a proven fact) and thus could legally define herself as separated from her family and thus low-income. Thus, defining herself as low income and without significant financial resources was legal on her FAFSA and her Questbridge applications. She may have exaggerated or embellished other aspects of her background, but she did have the right to represent herself as low-income.

Given 1 and 2 above, what civil or criminal case do you think Penn has here? They have a weak civil case at best because of their glaring lack of due diligence, and even in a civil case for fraud with the lower "clear and convincing evidence" standard, I'm doubtful that a lawyer could prove that any exaggerations or embellishments she made were decisive in her admission, given that she had a stellar academic track record both in high school and later in college. Penn would also have to prove losses in a civil case for fraud, and it's not clear that they've lost anything given that she was a good student at Penn.

The criminal case is off the table for the reasons listed in 1) and because of the much higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, where a prosecutor would have to prove that 1) her exaggerations were decisive or material in her admission 2) that Penn suffered losses as a result of her misrepresentations and 3) that she was not allowed to represent herself as low-income. I don't think any of those points could be argued at the clear and convincing standard, much less the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

That said, given what I read of Rhodes and Penn's investigation, I think she should lose the Rhodes. She seems to have exaggerated enough aspects of her story that she does not deserve to be a Rhodes scholar (though I agree that Penn didn't do their due diligence here either).

Excellent analysis. I’ll only add that UPenn themselves did their own job of providing exaggerations and outright lies to the press when they were hyping her Rhodes scholarship in the media. There was material in at least one of those Inquirer articles that didn’t come from her. It seems kind of hypocritical for Penn now to be turning on her for the very thing that they did.

And getting real here, are colleges like Penn and others like them totally honest and truthful when they are selling themselves to potential students who are going to be paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? Do they ever exaggerate or even lie? Do they ever play bait and switch with financial aid? But when a traumatized teenager does it in her efforts to overcompensate for an abusive childhood, that’s somehow reprehensible? She was selling herself to Penn. Penn sells themselves to applicants and parents. Both play the game with truthful technicalities, exaggerations, and lies. Rank hypocrisy here on Penn’s part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They put poor Black people in prison if they steal $1,000. This privileged brat stole at the very least a six-figure scholarship she didn’t qualify for. She should be in jail.

Nonsense. She hasn’t stolen anything. No one forced Penn to accept her for admission. No one forced them to nominate her for the Rhodes Scholarship. No one forced them to go over the top and exaggerate her background in promoting her Rhodes achievement.

MF never hid from Penn the fact that she went to an expensive private school. They had all of that information. If they’re now complaining about her background, they’re simply saying that they didn’t do their due diligence. Private schools like the one in this case are very, very involved with their students’ college applications and will provide any background information that the university requires. If Penn had questioned any inconsistencies in her story about being poor yet attending an expensive private school, all they had to do was to pick up the phone and ask. The school would have known her background inside and out.

Penn freakin’ nominated her for the Rhodes. Nominated! It was their job to vet her if they were going to nominate her. It was their job to dig into her background and make sure the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed BEFORE they endorsed her application. By nominating her, they were saying that they knew who she was and what her accomplishments were, that they were certifying her as a candidate. If they failed to do their job properly, that’s on them. No one else. But now they’re trying to shift blame and wash their hands I’d pa any responsibility. They’re responsible.

I agree that she shouldn't be in jail, but this is a bit lacking in nuance. Yes, no one forced Penn to accept her for admission and Penn clearly didn't do their due diligence in this case, because like you said they obviously had the information that she went to an expensive private school and could have questioned any inconsistencies at the time of admission.

Their lack of due diligence would prevent them from filing any kind of civil case against her. A criminal case is not going to happen and should not happen because:

1. Her high school academic track record was stellar and she had at least decent ECs, so she had a reasonable chance of getting into Penn anyway even if her background was exaggerated or embellished. Proving that any exaggerations or embellishments about her background were decisive in her admission beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law is not realistic, and prosecutors don't take weak cases. Secondarily, she did well academically at Penn, so she was also qualified in that sense.

2. Given that she had a reasonable chance of being admitted regardless and did well academically at Penn as stated in 1), the remaining question is whether her financial aid applications were honest. While she had a well off mother, she went through the foster care system (that's a proven fact) and thus could legally define herself as separated from her family and thus low-income. Thus, defining herself as low income and without significant financial resources was legal on her FAFSA and her Questbridge applications. She may have exaggerated or embellished other aspects of her background, but she did have the right to represent herself as low-income.

Given 1 and 2 above, what civil or criminal case do you think Penn has here? They have a weak civil case at best because of their glaring lack of due diligence, and even in a civil case for fraud with the lower "clear and convincing evidence" standard, I'm doubtful that a lawyer could prove that any exaggerations or embellishments she made were decisive in her admission, given that she had a stellar academic track record both in high school and later in college. Penn would also have to prove losses in a civil case for fraud, and it's not clear that they've lost anything given that she was a good student at Penn.

The criminal case is off the table for the reasons listed in 1) and because of the much higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, where a prosecutor would have to prove that 1) her exaggerations were decisive or material in her admission 2) that Penn suffered losses as a result of her misrepresentations and 3) that she was not allowed to represent herself as low-income. I don't think any of those points could be argued at the clear and convincing standard, much less the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

That said, given what I read of Rhodes and Penn's investigation, I think she should lose the Rhodes. She seems to have exaggerated enough aspects of her story that she does not deserve to be a Rhodes scholar (though I agree that Penn didn't do their due diligence here either).

Excellent analysis. I’ll only add that UPenn themselves did their own job of providing exaggerations and outright lies to the press when they were hyping her Rhodes scholarship in the media. There was material in at least one of those Inquirer articles that didn’t come from her. It seems kind of hypocritical for Penn now to be turning on her for the very thing that they did.

And getting real here, are colleges like Penn and others like them totally honest and truthful when they are selling themselves to potential students who are going to be paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? Do they ever exaggerate or even lie? Do they ever play bait and switch with financial aid? But when a traumatized teenager does it in her efforts to overcompensate for an abusive childhood, that’s somehow reprehensible? She was selling herself to Penn. Penn sells themselves to applicants and parents. Both play the game with truthful technicalities, exaggerations, and lies. Rank hypocrisy here on Penn’s part.

Well gee, "rank hypocrisy" isn't one of her claims in the lawsuit now is it? Why don't we stick with the case at hand? She has to prove retaliation, tortious interference with business relations, and intentional and negligent infliction of mental distress. I say discovery will make her look worse than the story does now. We'll see.

I would add that Penn probably would have gone along with her Rhodes candidacy had the story it not gotten into the papers. Once it became public you saw what happened -- as you note yourself, the huge weight of sentiment is against her. She'll be lucky to keep the MSW, but her credibility is shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They put poor Black people in prison if they steal $1,000. This privileged brat stole at the very least a six-figure scholarship she didn’t qualify for. She should be in jail.

Nonsense. She hasn’t stolen anything. No one forced Penn to accept her for admission. No one forced them to nominate her for the Rhodes Scholarship. No one forced them to go over the top and exaggerate her background in promoting her Rhodes achievement.

MF never hid from Penn the fact that she went to an expensive private school. They had all of that information. If they’re now complaining about her background, they’re simply saying that they didn’t do their due diligence. Private schools like the one in this case are very, very involved with their students’ college applications and will provide any background information that the university requires. If Penn had questioned any inconsistencies in her story about being poor yet attending an expensive private school, all they had to do was to pick up the phone and ask. The school would have known her background inside and out.

Penn freakin’ nominated her for the Rhodes. Nominated! It was their job to vet her if they were going to nominate her. It was their job to dig into her background and make sure the i’s were dotted and the t’s were crossed BEFORE they endorsed her application. By nominating her, they were saying that they knew who she was and what her accomplishments were, that they were certifying her as a candidate. If they failed to do their job properly, that’s on them. No one else. But now they’re trying to shift blame and wash their hands I’d pa any responsibility. They’re responsible.

I agree that she shouldn't be in jail, but this is a bit lacking in nuance. Yes, no one forced Penn to accept her for admission and Penn clearly didn't do their due diligence in this case, because like you said they obviously had the information that she went to an expensive private school and could have questioned any inconsistencies at the time of admission.

Their lack of due diligence would prevent them from filing any kind of civil case against her. A criminal case is not going to happen and should not happen because:

1. Her high school academic track record was stellar and she had at least decent ECs, so she had a reasonable chance of getting into Penn anyway even if her background was exaggerated or embellished. Proving that any exaggerations or embellishments about her background were decisive in her admission beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law is not realistic, and prosecutors don't take weak cases. Secondarily, she did well academically at Penn, so she was also qualified in that sense.

2. Given that she had a reasonable chance of being admitted regardless and did well academically at Penn as stated in 1), the remaining question is whether her financial aid applications were honest. While she had a well off mother, she went through the foster care system (that's a proven fact) and thus could legally define herself as separated from her family and thus low-income. Thus, defining herself as low income and without significant financial resources was legal on her FAFSA and her Questbridge applications. She may have exaggerated or embellished other aspects of her background, but she did have the right to represent herself as low-income.

Given 1 and 2 above, what civil or criminal case do you think Penn has here? They have a weak civil case at best because of their glaring lack of due diligence, and even in a civil case for fraud with the lower "clear and convincing evidence" standard, I'm doubtful that a lawyer could prove that any exaggerations or embellishments she made were decisive in her admission, given that she had a stellar academic track record both in high school and later in college. Penn would also have to prove losses in a civil case for fraud, and it's not clear that they've lost anything given that she was a good student at Penn.

The criminal case is off the table for the reasons listed in 1) and because of the much higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, where a prosecutor would have to prove that 1) her exaggerations were decisive or material in her admission 2) that Penn suffered losses as a result of her misrepresentations and 3) that she was not allowed to represent herself as low-income. I don't think any of those points could be argued at the clear and convincing standard, much less the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

That said, given what I read of Rhodes and Penn's investigation, I think she should lose the Rhodes. She seems to have exaggerated enough aspects of her story that she does not deserve to be a Rhodes scholar (though I agree that Penn didn't do their due diligence here either).

Excellent analysis. I’ll only add that UPenn themselves did their own job of providing exaggerations and outright lies to the press when they were hyping her Rhodes scholarship in the media. There was material in at least one of those Inquirer articles that didn’t come from her. It seems kind of hypocritical for Penn now to be turning on her for the very thing that they did.

And getting real here, are colleges like Penn and others like them totally honest and truthful when they are selling themselves to potential students who are going to be paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? Do they ever exaggerate or even lie? Do they ever play bait and switch with financial aid? But when a traumatized teenager does it in her efforts to overcompensate for an abusive childhood, that’s somehow reprehensible? She was selling herself to Penn. Penn sells themselves to applicants and parents. Both play the game with truthful technicalities, exaggerations, and lies. Rank hypocrisy here on Penn’s part.

Well gee, "rank hypocrisy" isn't one of her claims in the lawsuit now is it? Why don't we stick with the case at hand? She has to prove retaliation, tortious interference with business relations, and intentional and negligent infliction of mental distress. I say discovery will make her look worse than the story does now. We'll see.

I would add that Penn probably would have gone along with her Rhodes candidacy had the story it not gotten into the papers. Once it became public you saw what happened -- as you note yourself, the huge weight of sentiment is against her. She'll be lucky to keep the MSW, but her credibility is shot.

+1

The lawsuit that she brought, no less.