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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Did you read the long legal analysis post that I wrote earlier? It's a fact that she was in foster care, and thus she's legally allowed to report herself as low-income. She had no need to disclose to anyone that her mom was a successful medical doctor.

Now, you can dispute that she put herself in foster care, or whatever else some of these posters are baselessly alleging, but that has not been proven with facts.

Yes, her mom was a successful medical doctor. So what? She was in foster care, so her biological family's financial status is not material. By the way, if you actually read Penn's detailed response, they themselves state that they contacted the Questbridge CEO and asked the Questbridge CEO to review her QB app. The Questbridge CEO stated that the way she filled out her QB app was fine, and specifically that she was allowed to represent herself as low-income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m curious about your thoughts re the basis for Penn withholding a degree which she earned unless they get $4000. They’re imposing a fee after the fact which she never agreed to.

It’s certainly possible that she doesn’t have $4000. It’s also possible. That her legal representation is being provided pro bono. It just seems petty for Penn to demand $4K at this point, which is chump change to them but which might well be a big deal to her.

I also wanted to pint out that while Penn is trying to pass is trying to pass off the generous definition of “first gen low income” as the product of an unofficial student run organization, that organization is run by several university employed staffers. That alone suggests something other than “unofficial” and the fact that it has paid university staff is hardly consistent with “student run” even if there is a decision making Board of Directors made up of students. This is just one more example of Penn trying to have it both ways by holding her to the literal letter of the wording while playing fast & loose with the facts when their culpability might be questioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You weed analogy is absurd.

At the point she applied, she had no legal “mom”. She had been removed from her mother’s custody by social services. Why would she be reporting anything about her biological mother who was no longer supporting her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Did you read the long legal analysis post that I wrote earlier? It's a fact that she was in foster care, and thus she's legally allowed to report herself as low-income. She had no need to disclose to anyone that her mom was a successful medical doctor.

Now, you can dispute that she put herself in foster care, or whatever else some of these posters are baselessly alleging, but that has not been proven with facts.

Yes, her mom was a successful medical doctor. So what? She was in foster care, so her biological family's financial status is not material. By the way, if you actually read Penn's detailed response, they themselves state that they contacted the Questbridge CEO and asked the Questbridge CEO to review her QB app. The Questbridge CEO stated that the way she filled out her QB app was fine, and specifically that she was allowed to represent herself as low-income.

The whole thing sounds like a scam her and her mom cooked up to keep the mom's bio off college admissions to steal prestigious scholarships, admission to an elite school and $300,000 in aid her family didn't deserve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Did you read the long legal analysis post that I wrote earlier? It's a fact that she was in foster care, and thus she's legally allowed to report herself as low-income. She had no need to disclose to anyone that her mom was a successful medical doctor.

Now, you can dispute that she put herself in foster care, or whatever else some of these posters are baselessly alleging, but that has not been proven with facts.

Yes, her mom was a successful medical doctor. So what? She was in foster care, so her biological family's financial status is not material. By the way, if you actually read Penn's detailed response, they themselves state that they contacted the Questbridge CEO and asked the Questbridge CEO to review her QB app. The Questbridge CEO stated that the way she filled out her QB app was fine, and specifically that she was allowed to represent herself as low-income.

The whole thing sounds like a scam her and her mom cooked up to keep the mom's bio off college admissions to steal prestigious scholarships, admission to an elite school and $300,000 in aid her family didn't deserve.

It might sound like that to you, but there’s absolutely no evidence for that. Really just wild and baseless speculation. Her mother suffered consequences for the hospitalization and subsequent removal of her daughter from her home. Her name was posted on a child abuse site and she had to go through the expense of a legal process, which took years, to have her name removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Did you read the long legal analysis post that I wrote earlier? It's a fact that she was in foster care, and thus she's legally allowed to report herself as low-income. She had no need to disclose to anyone that her mom was a successful medical doctor.

Now, you can dispute that she put herself in foster care, or whatever else some of these posters are baselessly alleging, but that has not been proven with facts.

Yes, her mom was a successful medical doctor. So what? She was in foster care, so her biological family's financial status is not material. By the way, if you actually read Penn's detailed response, they themselves state that they contacted the Questbridge CEO and asked the Questbridge CEO to review her QB app. The Questbridge CEO stated that the way she filled out her QB app was fine, and specifically that she was allowed to represent herself as low-income.

Oh, so her few months (?) in "foster care" just deleted her mom from her life? Deleted how 13 years of private school was paid? Deleted that she grew up a rich white girl with a medical doctor mom in a mansion for 17 or 18 years? Yeah, totally "justifiable" to NEVER mention ANY of that to anyone. If you're a con artist trying to steal and get over on people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Did you read the long legal analysis post that I wrote earlier? It's a fact that she was in foster care, and thus she's legally allowed to report herself as low-income. She had no need to disclose to anyone that her mom was a successful medical doctor.

Now, you can dispute that she put herself in foster care, or whatever else some of these posters are baselessly alleging, but that has not been proven with facts.

Yes, her mom was a successful medical doctor. So what? She was in foster care, so her biological family's financial status is not material. By the way, if you actually read Penn's detailed response, they themselves state that they contacted the Questbridge CEO and asked the Questbridge CEO to review her QB app. The Questbridge CEO stated that the way she filled out her QB app was fine, and specifically that she was allowed to represent herself as low-income.

Oh, so her few months (?) in "foster care" just deleted her mom from her life? Deleted how 13 years of private school was paid? Deleted that she grew up a rich white girl with a medical doctor mom in a mansion for 17 or 18 years? Yeah, totally "justifiable" to NEVER mention ANY of that to anyone. If you're a con artist trying to steal and get over on people.

I think you have reading comprehension problems. Did you actually read my long legal analysis post? It was clear from her Questbridge application that she went to an expensive private high school. Her counselor and teacher recommendation letters would also have made that clear. I guarantee you that Penn, when reviewing her undergraduate Questbridge application, would have noticed that she went to an expensive private high school. The detail of what kind of high school you went to is one of the key things that Ivy League admission officers will look at.

Given that, why do you think Penn didn't do their basic due diligence when they were viewing her undergraduate app? They read her background story about foster care and they also had her transcript and recommendation letters showing that she went to an expensive private high school, so they would obviously have noticed the discrepancy that you're now harping on about. So why didn't they question it at the time? Or maybe they did question it 6 years ago and they were happy with the answer.

Secondarily, she was in foster care for a year. And yes, being in the foster care system is a serious thing. At that point she was cut off from her mother and could not expect her mother to financially support her, so sure it "deletes" her mom from her life, from a financial perspective. Are you seriously arguing that someone who goes through a very bad fight with parents, goes into foster care for a year, and then applies for college should have to pay their own way even though their parents are no longer willing to support them? If you're making that argument, then you're an idiot.

As for growing up a rich white girl, she did not hide that. Like I just said above, it would have been very obvious from her undergraduate Questbridge app, which showed that she went to an expensive private high school.

[Anonymous]

Nobody is seriously suggesting that Penn sue her, so I don't see the point of going on and on about how their case is weak.

[Anonymous]

I'd be curious to know what mother's side of the family is like i.e. are the maternal grandparents doctors too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is seriously suggesting that Penn sue her, so I don't see the point of going on and on about how their case is weak.

If there are any lies on her college application, they should sue her and take back her bachelor's for fraud. It's not like they throw your application file away.

[Anonymous]

WTF is up with the PP who keeps asking if anyone has read her "long legal analysis post"? This isn't the People's Court, PP - no one here is required to read or for that matter agree with your "long legal analysis post."

Someone is working overtime to try to "prove" that the fraud girl is right and Penn is wrong. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
As for growing up a rich white girl, she did not hide that. Like I just said above, it would have been very obvious from her undergraduate Questbridge app, which showed that she went to an expensive private high school.

So she actually graduated from the same elite private day school her mom sent her to in 7th or 8th grade? When exactly was her life disrupted by the "foster care system"? Where did she live and for precisely how long?

[Anonymous]

Secondarily, she was in foster care for a year. And yes, being in the foster care system is a serious thing. At that point she was cut off from her mother and could not expect her mother to financially support her, so sure it "deletes" her mom from her life, from a financial perspective.

So it was only "a year"? So literally only 12th grade, beginning right around the time she was applying to Questbridge? That's not suspicious or anything. Who paid for 12th grade tuition at her private school? Where did she live her senior year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Did you read the long legal analysis post that I wrote earlier? It's a fact that she was in foster care, and thus she's legally allowed to report herself as low-income. She had no need to disclose to anyone that her mom was a successful medical doctor.

Now, you can dispute that she put herself in foster care, or whatever else some of these posters are baselessly alleging, but that has not been proven with facts.

Yes, her mom was a successful medical doctor. So what? She was in foster care, so her biological family's financial status is not material. By the way, if you actually read Penn's detailed response, they themselves state that they contacted the Questbridge CEO and asked the Questbridge CEO to review her QB app. The Questbridge CEO stated that the way she filled out her QB app was fine, and specifically that she was allowed to represent herself as low-income.

Oh, so her few months (?) in "foster care" just deleted her mom from her life? Deleted how 13 years of private school was paid? Deleted that she grew up a rich white girl with a medical doctor mom in a mansion for 17 or 18 years? Yeah, totally "justifiable" to NEVER mention ANY of that to anyone. If you're a con artist trying to steal and get over on people.

Nice rant but all irrelevant. As a legal matter, yes, her mother was out of her life whether you like it or not.

How were the last 2 years of her high school paid? I’m not aware that he mother paid for them; I expect that she did not since MF was now a ward of the state. It’s possible that the state paid for it but unlikely. More likely is that the school covered the cost with financial aid.

I saw pictures of the house she grew up in, and it is not a mansion.

The fact is that she missed the first month of her junior year of high school as the result of injury, hospitalization, and a diagnosed seizure disorder. She then had that year disrupted by the need to relocate to foster care. With that kind of disruption to her life it’s amazing that she graduated from high school much less achieve at honors level and be elected student body President. She literally spent half of her high school career, the more important half for college admissions in foster care and beyond. For those 2 years she was not at all living the life of a rich kid in a “mansion”.

She doesn’t need to justify why she didn’t mention how and where she grew up to anyone. She included the information that was required. Her high school guidance reviewed her application and endorsed it. To this day, Questbridge says that she filled it out appropriately.

Please don’t get all hysterical on us with self-righteous indignation. You have posted baseless accusations filled with exaggerations and misrepresentations. Maybe you should look yourself in the mirror instead of condemning her for the same things you’re doing.

PS - She’s not a con artist and she didn’t steal anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is seriously suggesting that Penn sue her, so I don't see the point of going on and on about how their case is weak.

If there are any lies on her college application, they should sue her and take back her bachelor's for fraud. It's not like they throw your application file away.

I'm sorry, I think that she is likely to be shown in the wrong in the lawsuit she initiated, but this is idiocy.