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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here: I don't think Monica Lewinsky is a great parallel here. I posted a few pages ago about Stephen Glass, another Penn alum who got caught in a mess of lies and seems to have truly learned from the experience. He was a reporter for the New Republic in the 1990s who made up some of his stories. Got blackballed from journalism, went to law school, but continued to face opposition to practicing law because of his past deceit. I posted a link to a recent article that details how he cared for his wife while she was dying of early onset Alzheimers. https://airmail.news/issues/2021-12-4/loving-lies?utm_medium=email

It's a really moving story but one of the takeaways is that the disgrace he experienced after his lies were caught really did have an impact on his psyche as well as his job prospects. One of the sad things about Fierceton is that she seems to still think she can somehow get away with the whole scam. That's not a recipe for humility and repentance.

There was also a female writer who was caught in a similar scandal, then given another high-profile chance recently, and was caught LYING AGAIN and totally embarrassed The Atlantic. When people show you who they are... BELIEVE THEM.

The Atlantic gave Ruth Shalit a ‘second chance’ 25 years after a media scandal. It ended with a bitter retraction. (Updated)
In pointing out errors and fabrications in a wildly popular story about niche sports, the magazine said it was wrong to assign work to the writer at the center of a 1990s media scandal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/10/31/ruth-shalit-atlantic-niche-sports-correction/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure you felt sorry for her. Her reputation was completely trashed.

You shouldn't feel sorry for her as her life is now. Right?

Why would I feel sorry for someone who grew up top 1% rich, elite private schools, orthodontics, her own car, rich hobbies -- by all accounts she was mollycoddle by her wealthy mum -- then stole multiple scholarships she wasn't entitled to totaling well into the six figures, and arguably stole a seat at an Ivy League college? She is not a victim. She is a dime a dozen spoiled rotten white brat who is simply estranged from her mum. There is nothing compelling or unique about her, just a ruthless status-obsessed sociopath.

[Anonymous]

It has to be asked: Is she really even queer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure you felt sorry for her. Her reputation was completely trashed.

You shouldn't feel sorry for her as her life is now. Right?

Why would I feel sorry for someone who grew up top 1% rich, elite private schools, orthodontics, her own car, rich hobbies -- by all accounts she was mollycoddle by her wealthy mum -- then stole multiple scholarships she wasn't entitled to totaling well into the six figures, and arguably stole a seat at an Ivy League college? She is not a victim. She is a dime a dozen spoiled rotten white brat who is simply estranged from her mum. There is nothing compelling or unique about her, just a ruthless status-obsessed sociopath.

Slow that roll, space cowboy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here: I don't think Monica Lewinsky is a great parallel here. I posted a few pages ago about Stephen Glass, another Penn alum who got caught in a mess of lies and seems to have truly learned from the experience. He was a reporter for the New Republic in the 1990s who made up some of his stories. Got blackballed from journalism, went to law school, but continued to face opposition to practicing law because of his past deceit. I posted a link to a recent article that details how he cared for his wife while she was dying of early onset Alzheimers. https://airmail.news/issues/2021-12-4/loving-lies?utm_medium=email

It's a really moving story but one of the takeaways is that the disgrace he experienced after his lies were caught really did have an impact on his psyche as well as his job prospects. One of the sad things about Fierceton is that she seems to still think she can somehow get away with the whole scam. That's not a recipe for humility and repentance.

There was also a female writer who was caught in a similar scandal, then given another high-profile chance recently, and was caught LYING AGAIN and totally embarrassed The Atlantic. When people show you who they are... BELIEVE THEM.

The Atlantic gave Ruth Shalit a ‘second chance’ 25 years after a media scandal. It ended with a bitter retraction. (Updated)
In pointing out errors and fabrications in a wildly popular story about niche sports, the magazine said it was wrong to assign work to the writer at the center of a 1990s media scandal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/10/31/ruth-shalit-atlantic-niche-sports-correction/

Interestingly Shalit is also suing the entity that disclosed the truth:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/business/ruth-shalit-barrett-atlantic-lawsuit.html

Also Erik Wemple’s opinion here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/13/ruth-shalit-atlantic-washington-post/

[Anonymous]

People sue because they thought it was a sure thing and they are enraged at someone taking it away from them. Someone has to pay, and it isn't going to be them.

Until, of course, it is. Suing = discovery.

Letting the sun shine on it would be the perfect defense, except for the fact that the sun is shining on the lies. And the truth is an absolute defense to libel claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster here: I don't think Monica Lewinsky is a great parallel here. I posted a few pages ago about Stephen Glass, another Penn alum who got caught in a mess of lies and seems to have truly learned from the experience. He was a reporter for the New Republic in the 1990s who made up some of his stories. Got blackballed from journalism, went to law school, but continued to face opposition to practicing law because of his past deceit. I posted a link to a recent article that details how he cared for his wife while she was dying of early onset Alzheimers. https://airmail.news/issues/2021-12-4/loving-lies?utm_medium=email

It's a really moving story but one of the takeaways is that the disgrace he experienced after his lies were caught really did have an impact on his psyche as well as his job prospects. One of the sad things about Fierceton is that she seems to still think she can somehow get away with the whole scam. That's not a recipe for humility and repentance.

There was also a female writer who was caught in a similar scandal, then given another high-profile chance recently, and was caught LYING AGAIN and totally embarrassed The Atlantic. When people show you who they are... BELIEVE THEM.

The Atlantic gave Ruth Shalit a ‘second chance’ 25 years after a media scandal. It ended with a bitter retraction. (Updated)
In pointing out errors and fabrications in a wildly popular story about niche sports, the magazine said it was wrong to assign work to the writer at the center of a 1990s media scandal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/10/31/ruth-shalit-atlantic-niche-sports-correction/

Interestingly Shalit is also suing the entity that disclosed the truth:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/business/ruth-shalit-barrett-atlantic-lawsuit.html

Also Erik Wemple’s opinion here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/13/ruth-shalit-atlantic-washington-post/

Wow thank you. I didn't know there was a new update. Wemple is funny.

"The complaint’s claim that Barrett had a decades-long “antagonistic relationship with Mr. Wemple” treads on more empirical turf. For the life of the Erik Wemple Blog, we can’t recall having any interactions with her prior to 2020. Memories are faulty, and Barrett’s controversial career in Washington journalism dates back decades, so we could be forgetting something. We’ve asked her and Rothenberg for any details on our contentious past."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People sue because they thought it was a sure thing and they are enraged at someone taking it away from them. Someone has to pay, and it isn't going to be them.

Until, of course, it is. Suing = discovery.

Letting the sun shine on it would be the perfect defense, except for the fact that the sun is shining on the lies. And the truth is an absolute defense to libel claims.

+1

I think there is an element of magical thinking going on in both cases.

[Anonymous]

Sadly I picture Ms Fierceton in a few years living in a group home or care facility telling the nurse “I’m an Ivy League graduate and Rhodes scholar … and on and on” And the nurse saying I know you are dear and here take your pills … because Fierceton seems to believe her lies are totally true. Delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People sue because they thought it was a sure thing and they are enraged at someone taking it away from them. Someone has to pay, and it isn't going to be them.

Until, of course, it is. Suing = discovery.

Letting the sun shine on it would be the perfect defense, except for the fact that the sun is shining on the lies. And the truth is an absolute defense to libel claims.

+1

I think there is an element of magical thinking going on in both cases.

I actually think she sued, knowing she’d lose, to make Penn look bad. Just look at all the dirty laundry she’s aired! The wrongful death suit got way more publicity this way than it did on its own. Penn’s admissions practices look shoddy, and its lauded class mobility stats look to be cynically manipulated. And anyone with aspirations to be a Rhodes scholar knows now, as they didn’t before, that Rhodes must look on applicants supported by Penn with deep distrust.

And what does she lose? An MSW? Does she even really care about reforming foster care? Probably not.

Even assuming she gets nothing from the lawsuit, she walks away with a bachelor’s from an Ivy League university (summa!). Changes her last name again — she’s already had three — and disappears into a sea of Mackenzies.

Whatever the official fee arrangement, you know she’s not paying the bill for the lawyers. When the court rules against her, she’ll just add the judge/jury to the list of people who victimize her. And she never has to apologize. From her point of view suing is win/win, even given a 100% chance that she loses in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People sue because they thought it was a sure thing and they are enraged at someone taking it away from them. Someone has to pay, and it isn't going to be them.

Until, of course, it is. Suing = discovery.

Letting the sun shine on it would be the perfect defense, except for the fact that the sun is shining on the lies. And the truth is an absolute defense to libel claims.

+1

I think there is an element of magical thinking going on in both cases.

I actually think she sued, knowing she’d lose, to make Penn look bad. Just look at all the dirty laundry she’s aired! The wrongful death suit got way more publicity this way than it did on its own. Penn’s admissions practices look shoddy, and its lauded class mobility stats look to be cynically manipulated. And anyone with aspirations to be a Rhodes scholar knows now, as they didn’t before, that Rhodes must look on applicants supported by Penn with deep distrust.

And what does she lose? An MSW? Does she even really care about reforming foster care? Probably not.

Even assuming she gets nothing from the lawsuit, she walks away with a bachelor’s from an Ivy League university (summa!). Changes her last name again — she’s already had three — and disappears into a sea of Mackenzies.

Whatever the official fee arrangement, you know she’s not paying the bill for the lawyers. When the court rules against her, she’ll just add the judge/jury to the list of people who victimize her. And she never has to apologize. From her point of view suing is win/win, even given a 100% chance that she loses in court.

1. Penn doesn't look bad from this. You mean from her "seizure?" She didn't almost die. She had another behavioral episode where she flailed around pretending to have a seizure. The young man's death absolutely was a tragedy, but that's not what people will remember from this.

2. Yeah. A bachelor's degree under the name Mackenzie Fierceton. She can change her name, but the name on the degree doesn't change, and the difference will just highlight that she's trying to hide it. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It has to be asked: Is she really even queer?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People sue because they thought it was a sure thing and they are enraged at someone taking it away from them. Someone has to pay, and it isn't going to be them.

Until, of course, it is. Suing = discovery.

Letting the sun shine on it would be the perfect defense, except for the fact that the sun is shining on the lies. And the truth is an absolute defense to libel claims.

+1

I think there is an element of magical thinking going on in both cases.

I actually think she sued, knowing she’d lose, to make Penn look bad. Just look at all the dirty laundry she’s aired! The wrongful death suit got way more publicity this way than it did on its own. Penn’s admissions practices look shoddy, and its lauded class mobility stats look to be cynically manipulated. And anyone with aspirations to be a Rhodes scholar knows now, as they didn’t before, that Rhodes must look on applicants supported by Penn with deep distrust.

And what does she lose? An MSW? Does she even really care about reforming foster care? Probably not.

Even assuming she gets nothing from the lawsuit, she walks away with a bachelor’s from an Ivy League university (summa!). Changes her last name again — she’s already had three — and disappears into a sea of Mackenzies.

Whatever the official fee arrangement, you know she’s not paying the bill for the lawyers. When the court rules against her, she’ll just add the judge/jury to the list of people who victimize her. And she never has to apologize. From her point of view suing is win/win, even given a 100% chance that she loses in court.

I think Penn comes out looking good here, not bad, other than highlighting its ludicrous first-generation definition. But otherwise I agree with you.

I do not think Fierceton will be able to easily escape this for employers that actually do proper reference checks. But you are right she will probably change her name again.

[Anonymous]

Oh come on. There are no parallels between ML and that sociopath who got caught. ITA with the PP saying she will be dangerous in the future. The deception should officially follow her everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you defenders please explain this one away????

Read this part of the complaint:

29 “Additionally, I partially support my younger sister, who will be starting college soon. I will then have the additional strain of working to put her through school and ensure her basic living expenses are met. Because she also has special needs, additional resources such as medication, testing, learning aids, and more create further expenses throughout this process.” She wrote the same in her 2018-2019 PFAS form. Ms. Shaw told OSC that Mackenzie has not provided, and that there was no reason to believe it would become necessary to provide, “basic living expenses” or medical costs for Cat (who does have learning challenges). Asked about this, Mackenzie told OSC (and it was separately confirmed) that Mackenzie set up a 529 account for her sister to use towards higher education. OSC understands that the account has approximately $6,000 in it at this point. According to Mackenzie, the seed money for this account may have come from her biological father, although she does not quite remember.

So she tried to scheme more financial aid out of Penn by using a special needs half sister who lives with the dad she allegedly has no relationship with?????

?????????????