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

[Anonymous]

All these posters passing judgment when I highly doubt most, if not all, have ever been in foster care or have any experience with the foster care system.

My two siblings were adopted out of foster care. The life long trauma they have carried around that put them in foster care has never gone away. And neither of them came from low income households.

Just because this girl isn't from a dirt poor family situation doesn't mean she had any access to money. For her to be in the hospital at all, much less a month, is alarming. There is a documented history of abuse. She had no father in her life. I have no idea where the grandparents were. Her mother sounds like a monster. Sorry if her physical injuries aren't bad enough for DCUM. Unreal. You think there wasn't some mental or verbal abuse added in there. She was just pushed down the stairs once? NBD?! It also sounds like in high school she was emancipated or on her own.

I cannot understand the apologists on this thread. Her abuse doesn't sounds bad enough? She probably wasn't poor enough? Shame her. Ridicule her. Drag her name through the mud. Make her pay.

You posters are horrible. Her mother sounds horrible. And I don't believe for one second that the schools didn't take her story and run with it because it gives nice feel good vibes (look what an inspiration, we help poor people and foster kids). They used her and when it was convenient just tossed her aside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question to all the posters thinking this child is entirely justified in lying to gain another step on the ladder of prestige-is this someone you would enthusiastically hire & promote within your organization?

Yes I would. She was a young high school student at the time without family support. Desperate people do desperate things. Once she got the chance she proved herself by receiving exceptionally high marks over 4 years at Penn state who recommended her to the Rhodes committee.

But she's a relentless liar who invents her own truths and she is not in politics. May I ask what industry you are in?

Her story largely checks out. Did you read the full article?

I read the article. Her story didn't check out. The DA said he dropped the charges against the mom and the more he looked into it the less clear the story became. Whatever. She's not low-income or first generation. At least the Rhodes Committee didn't think so as they defined it.

She was hospitalized for almost a month, but sure her mom didn’t do anything wrong.

So she should be a Rhodes Scholar? And I think the prosecutor who investigated and dropped the charges knows more about it than you do.

I work with prosecutors and I doubt it. They are the bottom of the barrel lawyers. She hired a hot shot lawyer, prosecutor knew they couldn’t win, dropped charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's not first gen by my standards but it seems messed up for Penn to state that they consider "first at an elite institution" first gen and then say that her use of the designation is categorically untrue. They should have left the designation alone, and it seems like they introduced confusion in order to have it both ways (claim "look at all our [artificially inflated] first gen students" in literature, but then call those same kids connivers for going with Penn's definition if they want to punish them).

Of course Penn wants a more inclusive definition, that way on their stats they have a higher percentage of "first generation" students. The more the merrier to them, because it serves their interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question to all the posters thinking this child is entirely justified in lying to gain another step on the ladder of prestige-is this someone you would enthusiastically hire & promote within your organization?

Yes I would. She was a young high school student at the time without family support. Desperate people do desperate things. Once she got the chance she proved herself by receiving exceptionally high marks over 4 years at Penn state who recommended her to the Rhodes committee.

But she's a relentless liar who invents her own truths and she is not in politics. May I ask what industry you are in?

Her story largely checks out. Did you read the full article?

I read the article. Her story didn't check out. The DA said he dropped the charges against the mom and the more he looked into it the less clear the story became. Whatever. She's not low-income or first generation. At least the Rhodes Committee didn't think so as they defined it.

She was hospitalized for almost a month, but sure her mom didn’t do anything wrong.

and the state must have just placed her in foster care for funsies!

I can't help thinking this kid pushed the narrative to show mom who's the boss. She's obviously intelligent & has foresight & I'm really doubting there there was no other way to handle whatever stresses there were in her UMC home. She also supposedly had a difficult relationship with the dad (divorced), but no other details on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's not first gen by my standards but it seems messed up for Penn to state that they consider "first at an elite institution" first gen and then say that her use of the designation is categorically untrue. They should have left the designation alone, and it seems like they introduced confusion in order to have it both ways (claim "look at all our [artificially inflated] first gen students" in literature, but then call those same kids connivers for going with Penn's definition if they want to punish them).

Of course Penn wants a more inclusive definition, that way on their stats they have a higher percentage of "first generation" students. The more the merrier to them, because it serves their interests.

Right, but my point is then they turned around and bashed her for using their creative definition. They said it was "clearly untrue" that she was first gen, when they're the ones that made up the bogus definition of first gen themselves. They get to use the wiggle room to aggrandize their institution and also as a cudgel to call her a liar. That's gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question to all the posters thinking this child is entirely justified in lying to gain another step on the ladder of prestige-is this someone you would enthusiastically hire & promote within your organization?

Yes I would. She was a young high school student at the time without family support. Desperate people do desperate things. Once she got the chance she proved herself by receiving exceptionally high marks over 4 years at Penn state who recommended her to the Rhodes committee.

But she's a relentless liar who invents her own truths and she is not in politics. May I ask what industry you are in?

Her story largely checks out. Did you read the full article?

I read the article. Her story didn't check out. The DA said he dropped the charges against the mom and the more he looked into it the less clear the story became. Whatever. She's not low-income or first generation. At least the Rhodes Committee didn't think so as they defined it.

He also said the abuse could very well have happened but that he didn't have the evidence to pursue it. The nurse testified on her behalf. She could be considered low-income and 1st gen by Penn's standards. That is not clear cut. Rhodes did not do a deep investigation.

Read the article. It's Penn's definitions as well as her emancipation.

How can she be first gen when her mom was a radiologist? And she grew up rich!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question to all the posters thinking this child is entirely justified in lying to gain another step on the ladder of prestige-is this someone you would enthusiastically hire & promote within your organization?

Yes I would. She was a young high school student at the time without family support. Desperate people do desperate things. Once she got the chance she proved herself by receiving exceptionally high marks over 4 years at Penn state who recommended her to the Rhodes committee.

But she's a relentless liar who invents her own truths and she is not in politics. May I ask what industry you are in?

Her story largely checks out. Did you read the full article?

I read the article. Her story didn't check out. The DA said he dropped the charges against the mom and the more he looked into it the less clear the story became. Whatever. She's not low-income or first generation. At least the Rhodes Committee didn't think so as they defined it.

He also said the abuse could very well have happened but that he didn't have the evidence to pursue it. The nurse testified on her behalf. She could be considered low-income and 1st gen by Penn's standards. That is not clear cut. Rhodes did not do a deep investigation.

Read the article. It's Penn's definitions as well as her emancipation.

How can she be first gen when her mom was a radiologist? And she grew up rich!

Read the article. It's Penn's definitions as well as her emancipation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's not first gen by my standards but it seems messed up for Penn to state that they consider "first at an elite institution" first gen and then say that her use of the designation is categorically untrue. They should have left the designation alone, and it seems like they introduced confusion in order to have it both ways (claim "look at all our [artificially inflated] first gen students" in literature, but then call those same kids connivers for going with Penn's definition if they want to punish them).

Of course Penn wants a more inclusive definition, that way on their stats they have a higher percentage of "first generation" students. The more the merrier to them, because it serves their interests.

Right, but my point is then they turned around and bashed her for using their creative definition. They said it was "clearly untrue" that she was first gen, when they're the ones that made up the bogus definition of first gen themselves. They get to use the wiggle room to aggrandize their institution and also as a cudgel to call her a liar. That's gross.

Have you actually read the essay in question? It turns out to be a fantastical piece of writing full of details not backed up by facts. Maybe she's just a delusional loon & not a cunning, conniving sociopath, fine. Is that really the caliber of person to knowingly send off to Oxford?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All these posters passing judgment when I highly doubt most, if not all, have ever been in foster care or have any experience with the foster care system.

My two siblings were adopted out of foster care. The life long trauma they have carried around that put them in foster care has never gone away. And neither of them came from low income households.

Just because this girl isn't from a dirt poor family situation doesn't mean she had any access to money. For her to be in the hospital at all, much less a month, is alarming. There is a documented history of abuse. She had no father in her life. I have no idea where the grandparents were. Her mother sounds like a monster. Sorry if her physical injuries aren't bad enough for DCUM. Unreal. You think there wasn't some mental or verbal abuse added in there. She was just pushed down the stairs once? NBD?! It also sounds like in high school she was emancipated or on her own.

I cannot understand the apologists on this thread. Her abuse doesn't sounds bad enough? She probably wasn't poor enough? Shame her. Ridicule her. Drag her name through the mud. Make her pay.

You posters are horrible. Her mother sounds horrible. And I don't believe for one second that the schools didn't take her story and run with it because it gives nice feel good vibes (look what an inspiration, we help poor people and foster kids). They used her and when it was convenient just tossed her aside.

Yup. She clearly suffered some trauma. Now all the armchair Dr.s and judges are diagnosing and sentencing her based on a half-read article and hunches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's not first gen by my standards but it seems messed up for Penn to state that they consider "first at an elite institution" first gen and then say that her use of the designation is categorically untrue. They should have left the designation alone, and it seems like they introduced confusion in order to have it both ways (claim "look at all our [artificially inflated] first gen students" in literature, but then call those same kids connivers for going with Penn's definition if they want to punish them).

Of course Penn wants a more inclusive definition, that way on their stats they have a higher percentage of "first generation" students. The more the merrier to them, because it serves their interests.

Right, but my point is then they turned around and bashed her for using their creative definition. They said it was "clearly untrue" that she was first gen, when they're the ones that made up the bogus definition of first gen themselves. They get to use the wiggle room to aggrandize their institution and also as a cudgel to call her a liar. That's gross.

Have you actually read the essay in question? It turns out to be a fantastical piece of writing full of details not backed up by facts. Maybe she's just a delusional loon & not a cunning, conniving sociopath, fine. Is that really the caliber of person to knowingly send off to Oxford?

Can you link the essay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question to all the posters thinking this child is entirely justified in lying to gain another step on the ladder of prestige-is this someone you would enthusiastically hire & promote within your organization?

Yes I would. She was a young high school student at the time without family support. Desperate people do desperate things. Once she got the chance she proved herself by receiving exceptionally high marks over 4 years at Penn state who recommended her to the Rhodes committee.

But she's a relentless liar who invents her own truths and she is not in politics. May I ask what industry you are in?

Her story largely checks out. Did you read the full article?

I read the article. Her story didn't check out. The DA said he dropped the charges against the mom and the more he looked into it the less clear the story became. Whatever. She's not low-income or first generation. At least the Rhodes Committee didn't think so as they defined it.

She was hospitalized for almost a month, but sure her mom didn’t do anything wrong.

and the state must have just placed her in foster care for funsies!

I can't help thinking this kid pushed the narrative to show mom who's the boss. She's obviously intelligent & has foresight & I'm really doubting there there was no other way to handle whatever stresses there were in her UMC home. She also supposedly had a difficult relationship with the dad (divorced), but no other details on that.

Explain a month in the hospital due to injuries?

[Anonymous]

Here's another long read that provides more details from both sides, including why multiple panels at Penn determined that Fierceton had lied: https://www.bigtrial.net/2022/01/in-pillow-talk-conspiracy-penns.html

The prosecutor calls the abuse charges against the mother the biggest mistake of his career, a cousin who lived with Fierceton and her mother denies the abuse and accuses the kid of causing her own injuries, etc etc etc. There's also a lot of detail about Fierceton's involvement in another lawsuit against Penn. Still seems to me that this is one very smart but very crazy young woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's not first gen by my standards but it seems messed up for Penn to state that they consider "first at an elite institution" first gen and then say that her use of the designation is categorically untrue. They should have left the designation alone, and it seems like they introduced confusion in order to have it both ways (claim "look at all our [artificially inflated] first gen students" in literature, but then call those same kids connivers for going with Penn's definition if they want to punish them).

Of course Penn wants a more inclusive definition, that way on their stats they have a higher percentage of "first generation" students. The more the merrier to them, because it serves their interests.

Right, but my point is then they turned around and bashed her for using their creative definition. They said it was "clearly untrue" that she was first gen, when they're the ones that made up the bogus definition of first gen themselves. They get to use the wiggle room to aggrandize their institution and also as a cudgel to call her a liar. That's gross.

Have you actually read the essay in question? It turns out to be a fantastical piece of writing full of details not backed up by facts. Maybe she's just a delusional loon & not a cunning, conniving sociopath, fine. Is that really the caliber of person to knowingly send off to Oxford?

Can you link the essay?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's another long read that provides more details from both sides, including why multiple panels at Penn determined that Fierceton had lied: https://www.bigtrial.net/2022/01/in-pillow-talk-conspiracy-penns.html

The prosecutor calls the abuse charges against the mother the biggest mistake of his career, a cousin who lived with Fierceton and her mother denies the abuse and accuses the kid of causing her own injuries, etc etc etc. There's also a lot of detail about Fierceton's involvement in another lawsuit against Penn. Still seems to me that this is one very smart but very crazy young woman.

A cousin can’t testify to what she did not see which makes the prosecutor seem like a hack.

Explain 1 month in hospital with injuries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All these posters passing judgment when I highly doubt most, if not all, have ever been in foster care or have any experience with the foster care system.

My two siblings were adopted out of foster care. The life long trauma they have carried around that put them in foster care has never gone away. And neither of them came from low income households.

Just because this girl isn't from a dirt poor family situation doesn't mean she had any access to money. For her to be in the hospital at all, much less a month, is alarming. There is a documented history of abuse. She had no father in her life. I have no idea where the grandparents were. Her mother sounds like a monster. Sorry if her physical injuries aren't bad enough for DCUM. Unreal. You think there wasn't some mental or verbal abuse added in there. She was just pushed down the stairs once? NBD?! It also sounds like in high school she was emancipated or on her own.

I cannot understand the apologists on this thread. Her abuse doesn't sounds bad enough? She probably wasn't poor enough? Shame her. Ridicule her. Drag her name through the mud. Make her pay.

You posters are horrible. Her mother sounds horrible. And I don't believe for one second that the schools didn't take her story and run with it because it gives nice feel good vibes (look what an inspiration, we help poor people and foster kids). They used her and when it was convenient just tossed her aside.

1+, ITA. It's one thing to agree that her essay was embellished and her scholarship unwarranted; but its extraordinary the way PPs are contorting themselves to paint what was probably, at the least, a terrible homelife and foster care experience into some sort of scheme of by criminal mastermind.... teenager!