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

[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.

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.

I suspect that she was given enormous benefit of the doubt when she was nominated for the Rhodes. Penn didn’t look closely at inconsistencies already there (for instance her high school transcript compared to her Rhodes essay).

[Anonymous]

Rich conniving white girl. Mom is a successful doctor, lives in a $600k+ home, the conniving brat attended the best private day schools k-12.

"Poor" is a clever Black boy her age, likely with functionally illiterate parents who didn't graduate high school, who lived in a rental apartment in a hardscabble neighborhood, owned by a white slum lord who ignores the lead paint, the leaky roof, the drafty windows, and maybe doesn't pay the water or power bill, so it gets cut off once in a while.

This privileged sociopath stole a six-figure scholarship. She should be in prison for that alone.

[Anonymous]

Questbridge pays all expenses, tuition, room and board, and study abroad. The value of a Questbridge scholarship to an Ivy is well over 300,000.00 USD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I suspect that she was given enormous benefit of the doubt when she was nominated for the Rhodes. Penn didn’t look closely at inconsistencies already there (for instance her high school transcript compared to her Rhodes essay).

I'm the poster who posted the long legal analysis. I'm not sure I'd characterize this as benefit of the doubt, but more likely Penn being sloppy, not doing very basic and obvious due diligence, and wanting to promote one of their own (even with exaggerations). But now I'm making assumptions about UPenn's thinking process, so this is just a guess, though the lack of due diligence seems glaring to me.

Like I said in my previous legal analysis post, while I think Penn has a weak civil case at best for suing and while the criminal case seems nonexistent to me, I actually do think that she exaggerated or embellished quite a bit. The Rhodes investigation and Penn investigation seemed fairly thorough and factual (if a little heavy handed), and they uncovered enough probable exaggerations and embellishments that I think she should lose the Rhodes.

She is not going to lose her MSW. Penn already stated in their filing that she just has to pay $4k and apologize in order to receive her MSW. I'm also not sure why she chose to sue instead; that seems like a poor choice on her part.

I'll reiterate again that posters on this thread seem to be heavily on one side or the other, and I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's possible (and now seems probable to me) that all the following is simultaneously true:

1) She made some significant exaggerations or embellishments, but a lot of her story is also potentially based in fact. It's a fact that she was in the hospital for a few weeks and then in foster care, and was thus eligible to represent herself as low-income. First generation is more of a stretch, but not entirely out of the question given Penn's own ambiguous definition (which while was the definition used by an unofficial student organization, was at least linked to by Penn on an official website page).

2) Some posters have speculated that she made up the abuse from her mother and "put herself" in the hospital and foster care. While entirely possible, this is still currently speculation, and has not been proven with hard facts.

3) She had a stellar academic track record (and at least decent ECs) in both high school and later at Penn. Thus, even without her probable exaggerations, she had a decent shot (likely at least the average admissions rate for Penn) at getting in.

4) 3) does not excuse her exaggerations however, and she likely should have lost the Rhodes.

5) While it seems probable that she exaggerated and embellished and she should have lost the Rhodes, her exaggerations and embellishments are not serious enough to excuse Penn's glaring lack of due diligence. Yes, she's responsible for her exaggerations and embellishments, but she did not forge or conceal a transcript from her expensive private school, and Penn absolutely should have done due diligence about the discrepancy between her first-gen, low income background and her expensive private schooling when they considered her Questbridge applications for undergraduate admission. They are at least partly responsible for that glaring lack of due diligence.

Given all the above, I'd argue that Penn's decision in this case is pretty reasonable, and maybe even slightly generous:

1) Given her probable exaggerations, she should lose the Rhodes, so I think both Penn and the Rhodes committee made the right choice here.

2) Given Penn's glaring lack of due diligence and given that she had a decent chance of getting in anyway even without her exaggerations and given that she had a right to represent herself as low income (since it's a fact that she was in foster care), then there is a weak civil lawsuit and a nonexistent criminal case. Penn did not try to sue her or to pursue a criminal case against her, and I think that was clearly the correct choice here.

3) She did all the work for her undergrad degree and her master's degree. Penn is allowing her to keep her undergrad degree and has also stated in their response that they will grant her MSW if she apologizes and pays 4k. To me, that seems like approximately the right response, maybe even slightly generous. Her QB application and master's application contained some probable exaggerations, but those exaggerations are still a bit murky, not fully proven, and many college essays contain some dramatic flair and embellishment. Penn did not do enough due diligence 6 years ago, and trying to figure out what really happened 6 or more years after the events in question is not easy. Thus she's partly responsible for some probable exaggerations and Penn is partly responsible for not doing enough due diligence when the events were still fresh and the facts potentially clearer. Given that, while Penn could maybe have a basis for rescinding both her degrees, it'd likely come off as pretty heavy handed. So I think they made the right choice in allowing her to keep both degrees, even if it was slightly generous.

I think MF made a bad choice in suing, though. I think her lawsuit is weak and her credibility at least somewhat questionable, and I don't think she should have sued. Penn has been pretty reasonable in all of this, in my opinion, and she should have taken their slightly generous response at face value, apologized and paid the 4k, and moved on with her life. I'd be pretty surprised if she got any settlement from Penn, much less a worthwhile one, and I think she'll lose this lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

The Fierceton fan here keeps hyping the statement by the two political science professors, but it's notable that no one from her MSW program seems to be taking her side.

Her behavior since the outing has been pretty self-defeating. She could have just ponied up $4k, apologized and walked away with 2 free Ivy League degrees. Instead, she's going to be out some legal fees and more burned bridges. It does seem to suggest that she's less conniving than mentally ill - a really smart schemer would have known when to cut and run. I assume she really believes her own narrative.

The really sad part of whole scandal is that it will probably force Questbridge and colleges to do a little more due diligence around that program - which would be a shame, since presumably there are very few con artists at Fierceton's level.

Last point, this whole saga reminded me another scandal surrounding Penn and lying, about a New Republic reporter who concocted many of his stories. They made a movie about him (Shattered Glass.) He actually seems to have really atoned for his falsehoods. I saw this incredible update about his life a while back, it's really moving. Fierceton should read it, and try living the rest of her life the way that Stephen Glass has: https://airmail.news/issues/2021-12-4/loving-lies?utm_medium=email

[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.

Agree. I don’t know about her looking worse, but I think that her case for damages is going to be hard to win. Always hard to prove intent unless you have a smoking gun. The one thing she has a chance to accomplish in the suit is to get her master’s. Penn has already said in writing that she’s met all the requirements and her grades are stellar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Fierceton fan here keeps hyping the statement by the two political science professors, but it's notable that no one from her MSW program seems to be taking her side.

Her behavior since the outing has been pretty self-defeating. She could have just ponied up $4k, apologized and walked away with 2 free Ivy League degrees. Instead, she's going to be out some legal fees and more burned bridges. It does seem to suggest that she's less conniving than mentally ill - a really smart schemer would have known when to cut and run. I assume she really believes her own narrative.

The really sad part of whole scandal is that it will probably force Questbridge and colleges to do a little more due diligence around that program - which would be a shame, since presumably there are very few con5 artists at Fierceton's level.

Last point, this whole saga reminded me another scandal surrounding Penn and lying, about a New Republic reporter who concocted many of his stories. They made a movie about him (Shattered Glass.) He actually seems to have really atoned for his falsehoods. I saw this incredible update about his life a while back, it's really moving. Fierceton should read it, and try living the rest of her life the way that Stephen Glass has: https://airmail.news/issues/2021-12-4/loving-lies?utm_medium=email

How would we know that no one from her MSW program is taking her side? She has 2 advisors. That doesn’t mean that no one else is supporting her.

She may well be fighting mental illness. What a shock that after years of abuse by her parents, the trauma of hospitalization, and then being thrown out on the streets that she might be experiencing PTSD and accompanying erratic behaviour. You right, I think, that she’s not a smart schemer. She looks to me to be more of a driven overachiever, trying to compensate fir all of the losses in her life. The lawsuit would seem to be part of that pattern.

Penn has obvious failures in this situation. Why they couldn’t simply acknowledge their responsibility where it lay and work with her so that they’d get a win-win is hard to understand. In their response to yeh university’s filing, the 2 professors outlined a middle path that Penn could have followed. Too bad they didn’t because I don’t think they come out of this looking any better than she does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I suspect that she was given enormous benefit of the doubt when she was nominated for the Rhodes. Penn didn’t look closely at inconsistencies already there (for instance her high school transcript compared to her Rhodes essay).

I'm the poster who posted the long legal analysis. I'm not sure I'd characterize this as benefit of the doubt, but more likely Penn being sloppy, not doing very basic and obvious due diligence, and wanting to promote one of their own (even with exaggerations). But now I'm making assumptions about UPenn's thinking process, so this is just a guess, though the lack of due diligence seems glaring to me.

Like I said in my previous legal analysis post, while I think Penn has a weak civil case at best for suing and while the criminal case seems nonexistent to me, I actually do think that she exaggerated or embellished quite a bit. The Rhodes investigation and Penn investigation seemed fairly thorough and factual (if a little heavy handed), and they uncovered enough probable exaggerations and embellishments that I think she should lose the Rhodes.

She is not going to lose her MSW. Penn already stated in their filing that she just has to pay $4k and apologize in order to receive her MSW. I'm also not sure why she chose to sue instead; that seems like a poor choice on her part.

I'll reiterate again that posters on this thread seem to be heavily on one side or the other, and I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's possible (and now seems probable to me) that all the following is simultaneously true:

1) She made some significant exaggerations or embellishments, but a lot of her story is also potentially based in fact. It's a fact that she was in the hospital for a few weeks and then in foster care, and was thus eligible to represent herself as low-income. First generation is more of a stretch, but not entirely out of the question given Penn's own ambiguous definition (which while was the definition used by an unofficial student organization, was at least linked to by Penn on an official website page).

2) Some posters have speculated that she made up the abuse from her mother and "put herself" in the hospital and foster care. While entirely possible, this is still currently speculation, and has not been proven with hard facts.

3) She had a stellar academic track record (and at least decent ECs) in both high school and later at Penn. Thus, even without her probable exaggerations, she had a decent shot (likely at least the average admissions rate for Penn) at getting in.

4) 3) does not excuse her exaggerations however, and she likely should have lost the Rhodes.

5) While it seems probable that she exaggerated and embellished and she should have lost the Rhodes, her exaggerations and embellishments are not serious enough to excuse Penn's glaring lack of due diligence. Yes, she's responsible for her exaggerations and embellishments, but she did not forge or conceal a transcript from her expensive private school, and Penn absolutely should have done due diligence about the discrepancy between her first-gen, low income background and her expensive private schooling when they considered her Questbridge applications for undergraduate admission. They are at least partly responsible for that glaring lack of due diligence.

Given all the above, I'd argue that Penn's decision in this case is pretty reasonable, and maybe even slightly generous:

1) Given her probable exaggerations, she should lose the Rhodes, so I think both Penn and the Rhodes committee made the right choice here.

2) Given Penn's glaring lack of due diligence and given that she had a decent chance of getting in anyway even without her exaggerations and given that she had a right to represent herself as low income (since it's a fact that she was in foster care), then there is a weak civil lawsuit and a nonexistent criminal case. Penn did not try to sue her or to pursue a criminal case against her, and I think that was clearly the correct choice here.

3) She did all the work for her undergrad degree and her master's degree. Penn is allowing her to keep her undergrad degree and has also stated in their response that they will grant her MSW if she apologizes and pays 4k. To me, that seems like approximately the right response, maybe even slightly generous. Her QB application and master's application contained some probable exaggerations, but those exaggerations are still a bit murky, not fully proven, and many college essays contain some dramatic flair and embellishment. Penn did not do enough due diligence 6 years ago, and trying to figure out what really happened 6 or more years after the events in question is not easy. Thus she's partly responsible for some probable exaggerations and Penn is partly responsible for not doing enough due diligence when the events were still fresh and the facts potentially clearer. Given that, while Penn could maybe have a basis for rescinding both her degrees, it'd likely come off as pretty heavy handed. So I think they made the right choice in allowing her to keep both degrees, even if it was slightly generous.

I think MF made a bad choice in suing, though. I think her lawsuit is weak and her credibility at least somewhat questionable, and I don't think she should have sued. Penn has been pretty reasonable in all of this, in my opinion, and she should have taken their slightly generous response at face value, apologized and paid the 4k, and moved on with her life. I'd be pretty surprised if she got any settlement from Penn, much less a worthwhile one, and I think she'll lose this lawsuit.

She was in foster care. She is entitled to free college if she is in foster care. Her family background prior to foster care is not relevant. Her biological family has money but if they are not willing to pay for college, that means nothing. The foster care system was supporting her, not her parents. Her parents may have continued to pay for the private school or she got financial aid, but she still qualified based off foster care. Would you prefer she not go to college and live in a homeless shelter after getting kicked out of college?

Many kids embellish for college applications. Its not right, but it happens.

She earned those degrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I suspect that she was given enormous benefit of the doubt when she was nominated for the Rhodes. Penn didn’t look closely at inconsistencies already there (for instance her high school transcript compared to her Rhodes essay).

I'm the poster who posted the long legal analysis. I'm not sure I'd characterize this as benefit of the doubt, but more likely Penn being sloppy, not doing very basic and obvious due diligence, and wanting to promote one of their own (even with exaggerations). But now I'm making assumptions about UPenn's thinking process, so this is just a guess, though the lack of due diligence seems glaring to me.

Like I said in my previous legal analysis post, while I think Penn has a weak civil case at best for suing and while the criminal case seems nonexistent to me, I actually do think that she exaggerated or embellished quite a bit. The Rhodes investigation and Penn investigation seemed fairly thorough and factual (if a little heavy handed), and they uncovered enough probable exaggerations and embellishments that I think she should lose the Rhodes.

She is not going to lose her MSW. Penn already stated in their filing that she just has to pay $4k and apologize in order to receive her MSW. I'm also not sure why she chose to sue instead; that seems like a poor choice on her part.

I'll reiterate again that posters on this thread seem to be heavily on one side or the other, and I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's possible (and now seems probable to me) that all the following is simultaneously true:

1) She made some significant exaggerations or embellishments, but a lot of her story is also potentially based in fact. It's a fact that she was in the hospital for a few weeks and then in foster care, and was thus eligible to represent herself as low-income. First generation is more of a stretch, but not entirely out of the question given Penn's own ambiguous definition (which while was the definition used by an unofficial student organization, was at least linked to by Penn on an official website page).

2) Some posters have speculated that she made up the abuse from her mother and "put herself" in the hospital and foster care. While entirely possible, this is still currently speculation, and has not been proven with hard facts.

3) She had a stellar academic track record (and at least decent ECs) in both high school and later at Penn. Thus, even without her probable exaggerations, she had a decent shot (likely at least the average admissions rate for Penn) at getting in.

4) 3) does not excuse her exaggerations however, and she likely should have lost the Rhodes.

5) While it seems probable that she exaggerated and embellished and she should have lost the Rhodes, her exaggerations and embellishments are not serious enough to excuse Penn's glaring lack of due diligence. Yes, she's responsible for her exaggerations and embellishments, but she did not forge or conceal a transcript from her expensive private school, and Penn absolutely should have done due diligence about the discrepancy between her first-gen, low income background and her expensive private schooling when they considered her Questbridge applications for undergraduate admission. They are at least partly responsible for that glaring lack of due diligence.

Given all the above, I'd argue that Penn's decision in this case is pretty reasonable, and maybe even slightly generous:

1) Given her probable exaggerations, she should lose the Rhodes, so I think both Penn and the Rhodes committee made the right choice here.

2) Given Penn's glaring lack of due diligence and given that she had a decent chance of getting in anyway even without her exaggerations and given that she had a right to represent herself as low income (since it's a fact that she was in foster care), then there is a weak civil lawsuit and a nonexistent criminal case. Penn did not try to sue her or to pursue a criminal case against her, and I think that was clearly the correct choice here.

3) She did all the work for her undergrad degree and her master's degree. Penn is allowing her to keep her undergrad degree and has also stated in their response that they will grant her MSW if she apologizes and pays 4k. To me, that seems like approximately the right response, maybe even slightly generous. Her QB application and master's application contained some probable exaggerations, but those exaggerations are still a bit murky, not fully proven, and many college essays contain some dramatic flair and embellishment. Penn did not do enough due diligence 6 years ago, and trying to figure out what really happened 6 or more years after the events in question is not easy. Thus she's partly responsible for some probable exaggerations and Penn is partly responsible for not doing enough due diligence when the events were still fresh and the facts potentially clearer. Given that, while Penn could maybe have a basis for rescinding both her degrees, it'd likely come off as pretty heavy handed. So I think they made the right choice in allowing her to keep both degrees, even if it was slightly generous.

I think MF made a bad choice in suing, though. I think her lawsuit is weak and her credibility at least somewhat questionable, and I don't think she should have sued. Penn has been pretty reasonable in all of this, in my opinion, and she should have taken their slightly generous response at face value, apologized and paid the 4k, and moved on with her life. I'd be pretty surprised if she got any settlement from Penn, much less a worthwhile one, and I think she'll lose this lawsuit.

She was in foster care. She is entitled to free college if she is in foster care. Her family background prior to foster care is not relevant. Her biological family has money but if they are not willing to pay for college, that means nothing. The foster care system was supporting her, not her parents. Her parents may have continued to pay for the private school or she got financial aid, but she still qualified based off foster care. Would you prefer she not go to college and live in a homeless shelter after getting kicked out of college?

Many kids embellish for college applications. Its not right, but it happens.

She earned those degrees.

Poster here who wrote the original long post above. Yes, I generally agreed in the long post that you replied to that she was entitled to free college because she was in foster care, and that her family background prior to foster care is not relevant. That's why I've repeatedly
stated that Penn would have a very weak civil case (they'd have to prove that her embellishments were both decisive for her admission and that they suffered damages because of those embellishments). I don't think they can prove either, even at the civil standard, because she had a stellar academic track record and decent ECs in high school anyway regardless of any embellishments and also did well in college.

So yes, I agree that she generally had a right to that financial aid.

As for the exaggerations and embellishments, I don't think they were substantially worse than what many kids do for college applications, like you said. That's why I said above that I think Penn likely made the right choice in allowing her to keep her degrees. All that said, the exaggerations and embellishments quite possibly do give them a technical basis for rescinding her degrees if they really wanted to. I don't think that would be appropriate, because she was generally qualified and earned those degrees, but they possibly could have had a basis for doing so, and it's worth noting that they didn't.

From a legal perspective, I'll additionally add that her undergraduate application was 6 years ago. Legal action for fraud (whether a civil case or rescinding a degree) has statute of limitations, and one of the main reasons is that evidence deteriorates over time and it becomes harder to discover the truth. The defendant is also less able to defend themselves after years have passed because of missing evidence, etc. Statute of limitations can be tolled via the discovery rule, but applying the discovery rule requires showing that the plaintiff (Penn, in this case) did basic due diligence and could not have discovered the truth earlier. Given her transcript (and counselor and teacher recommendation letters!) from an expensive private high school, Penn had every reason to notice the discrepancy between her background story and her expensive private schooling. I think it's clear that they failed to do basic due diligence, and thus the statute of limitations can not be tolled here via the discovery rule.

Thus, given that any statute of limitations for a civil case for her undergraduate degree has also run out already, I agree that on that basis Penn should probably not be rescinding her undergraduate degree, especially given their lack of due diligence 6 years ago.

[Anonymous]

For the PP saying a college con artist like this is rare, actually it’s not. Families defrauding college admissions and financial aid departments to get in-state tuition, scholarships and aid they’re not entitled to has soared in the last 10 years. Families are committing felonies to hide assets, fake divorces, fake ethnicity, and mislead the IRS, FAFSA, and colleges. Not to mention these exaggerated or purely fake narratives grease the skids to get admitted to more selective colleges in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rich conniving white girl. Mom is a successful doctor, lives in a $600k+ home, the conniving brat attended the best private day schools k-12.

"Poor" is a clever Black boy her age, likely with functionally illiterate parents who didn't graduate high school, who lived in a rental apartment in a hardscabble neighborhood, owned by a white slum lord who ignores the lead paint, the leaky roof, the drafty windows, and maybe doesn't pay the water or power bill, so it gets cut off once in a while.

This privileged sociopath stole a six-figure scholarship. She should be in prison for that alone.

You’re really the first poster to point all of this out, which is very telling to me about DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich conniving white girl. Mom is a successful doctor, lives in a $600k+ home, the conniving brat attended the best private day schools k-12.

"Poor" is a clever Black boy her age, likely with functionally illiterate parents who didn't graduate high school, who lived in a rental apartment in a hardscabble neighborhood, owned by a white slum lord who ignores the lead paint, the leaky roof, the drafty windows, and maybe doesn't pay the water or power bill, so it gets cut off once in a while.

This privileged sociopath stole a six-figure scholarship. She should be in prison for that alone.

You’re really the first poster to point all of this out, which is very telling to me about DCUM.

I'm the author of the long legal analysis post, which you should really read. They're the first poster to point all of that out because it's an idiotic perspective and has no legal justification.

Penn has a very weak civil case at best and the criminal case is nonexistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rich conniving white girl. Mom is a successful doctor, lives in a $600k+ home, the conniving brat attended the best private day schools k-12.

"Poor" is a clever Black boy her age, likely with functionally illiterate parents who didn't graduate high school, who lived in a rental apartment in a hardscabble neighborhood, owned by a white slum lord who ignores the lead paint, the leaky roof, the drafty windows, and maybe doesn't pay the water or power bill, so it gets cut off once in a while.

This privileged sociopath stole a six-figure scholarship. She should be in prison for that alone.

You’re really the first poster to point all of this out, which is very telling to me about DCUM.

There were posters earlier who pointed out that Fierceton is benefiting by being a privileged white woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the PP saying a college con artist like this is rare, actually it’s not. Families defrauding college admissions and financial aid departments to get in-state tuition, scholarships and aid they’re not entitled to has soared in the last 10 years. Families are committing felonies to hide assets, fake divorces, fake ethnicity, and mislead the IRS, FAFSA, and colleges. Not to mention these exaggerated or purely fake narratives grease the skids to get admitted to more selective colleges in the first place.

She’s not a con artist. She didn’t defraud anyone. No felonies were committed. Sheesh!

[Anonymous]

Her claiming she's a poor foster care kid is akin to trying weed at a party in 12th grade and telling everyone for the rest of your life you're recovered drug addict.

ZERO CHANCE she EVER disclosed to anyone on these scholarship committees her mom is a successful medical doctor. I would bet anything.