Wow! She got her degrees on false grounds?! Her academic performance was superb.
1 Like
It really doesnât matter if her motherâs version of the incident or hers is correct. She was placed into foster care and therefore can fill out FAFSA as an independent student, which most likely made her low income:
Steps for filling out the FAFSA if you live with legal guardians or foster parents
In Step 3 (Student), check âyesâ for any applicable questions, which are likely to be numbers 52 **(At any time since you turned age 13, were both of your parents deceased, were you in foster care or were you a dependent or ward of the court)** or 54 (As determined by a court in your state of legal residence, are you or were you in a legal guardianship?).
Skip all of Step 4 (Parent).
We donât know if she had her own income, but probably not (or not that she had access to, if she was living in foster care which applying to college.
The system sets this rule for all, that going into foster care resets the history of the child. My kids went to grade school with a girl who was removed from her motherâs care and placed with her grandparents. The grandparents were very wealthy and this girl moved from a very disruptive, poor environment with lots of drugs and alcohol to a $3M home in a gated community. However, she was on medicaid because she was a ward of the state. When the grandparents adopted her, she remained medicaid eligible for the rest of her youth because that was the law. Whenever a benefit was available to those on medicaid, she could accept it. The system chose not to distinguish between those adopted into poor households or wealthy - anyone adopted who was on medicaid gets to remain on it.
This Penn student got a new start at age 17. Isnât the point of needing extra help as a first generation student that you donât have parents to guide you through the college application process? Do we think her doctor mother was helping her fill out application or financial aid forms? Do we know that her foster parents or her high school counselor could help? Should we separate out the kids in âgoodâ foster care homes from those in horrible ones and only give those in horrible homes the right to skip the questions on FAFSA or the applications?
There is a âone size fits allâ about the rules for those in foster care. All get to use the shortcuts to (most likely) a $0 EFC. Sometimes kids in foster care or adopted from foster care get to get new SSN as theirs have been plastered all over documents and files and often misused by those expected to care for them. As a rule, most in foster care do need the extra help and ease in a short cut application. We donât want these kids having to contact parents who (may) have abused them, asking (begging) those parents to disclose financial info. Sometimes they arenât even allowed contact.
Do some kids have it better than others in foster care? Yes. Did Ms. Fierceton have it better? Financially, maybe but we donât know. I donât think she should have to prove sheâs more needy than others. I doubt her mother was willing to fill out the CSS if they were still feuding, so the system allows foster kids a different route to get financial aid for college. Ms. Fierceton took that route. It doesnât matter if she had horseback riding lessons or vacationed in Paris as an 8 year old. As a 17 year old, she was in foster care and she completed the documentation correctly for her situation at that time.
3 Likes
Yes she could have been admitted to the colleges that just consider academic performance for admission-many schools, including some in Canada and Europe, as well as some public universities in the US. No need for the false story, or any story, at such a school. She might even had been admitted to Penn honestly if she had just told the truth. I guess she will never know.
2 Likes
No one is disputing her FAFSA.
3 Likes
It reminds me of the role that Sarah Michelle Gellar played in the 1999 film Cruel Intentions (Cruel Intentions - Wikipedia) that was a teenage remake of Glenn Closeâs role in Dangerous Liaisons. But sadly sheâs much too old now.
1 Like
I think Penn is claiming she wasnât low income (and shouldnât have been in the first gen, low income group). No one who is low income has to prove they were always low income, or didnât benefit from swimming and gymnastics lessons when they were younger. To qualify as low income, she had to be low income at the time of application, and she was.
I donât know if CSS also has a path for foster kids to complete the form without a parentâs income. It certainly has non-custodial parent waiver forms, and her mother wasnât a custodial parent when MF applied.
Iâm just stating that it doesnât matter if her mother claimed (or whoever reported her to Penn) that she wasnât abused or poor or underprivileged. By definition, because she was in foster care, she got a ânew beginningâ and IMO she was âfirst generationâ too because her prior family was no longer involved in her life.
A year or so ago, there was an article about Illinois families placing their kids into guardianships so they could qualify for FA for college. THATâs abusing the system, but this is a case where the system treats all foster kids the same, whether they are financially disadvantaged or not, because the majority in foster care are at an economic disadvantage - and usually have other disadvantages too.
1 Like
Read the report. They are not disputing that she qualified as low income per FAFSA. She is not, however, first gen. And she was not raised low income.
By Pennâs definition, she was first gen when she was admitted.
What is at issue here is Pennâs actions to withhold her masterâs degree pending a discipline review, for which she has completed all the requirements, and their actions interfere with her Rhodes Scholarship award, for which she is essentially claiming tortious interference. She is suing for damages on the basis that their actions were motivated by retaliation for her involvement in the Driver wrongful death lawsuit against Penn. The burden is on her to prove that was their motivation. Thatâs always a hard case to prove. In many ways, there are similarities to a whistleblower claiming they were fired in retaliation for reporting violations by their employer.
1 Like
You keep saying that but it isnât true. The definition being thrown around was not an institutional definition but one used by a student org.
And based on the reports, her case is a loser. She has no credibility and timing wise, retaliation seems highly unlikely since a former classmate from high school started the chain reaction and Penn didnât investigate until after Rhodes Trust did.
2 Likes
What was Pennâs definition in 2015/16?
I agree that her case will be difficult unless she has a witness we donât know about. Otherwise it is largely circumstantial.
The definition is in both reports.
Youâre going to have to help me out with this one. I have re-read both articles and I do not find a stated definition of first generation that Penn used for admissions purposes.
In fact, the Chronicle article specifically states that there was no such definition and the Big Trial âPillow Talkâ article states that Penn recommended Ms. Fierceton to the Rhodes Scholarship as first gen specifically based on her membership in FGLI.
What am I missing?
1 Like
Why is Penn holding her Masterâs degree? What do they claim she did wrong in applying to grad school or during her grad school work? They knew she had a Penn degree by then and was no longer a 17 year old in the foster care system.
1 Like
It does not seem likely that Penn is motiveted by retaliation. After all, they nominated her for the Rhodes. More likely, they fear the scrutiny of their admission process having been duped 3 times (at undergraduate, graduate admission, and nomination for Rhodes). Now, they are overzelous to show that they follow a strict process and do not overprotect and conceal the truth about (what is perceived as essentially) an upper-middle class white girl.
The retaliation tangent is smokes and mirrors to deflect blame from the girl.
4 Likes
I think that this is the interesting part of this because it lies at the heart of Ms. Fiercetonâs case.
What the intent of either party is, we have no way of knowing. And thatâs precisely the plaintiffâs problem. In all of her submissions, she never once reports that they demanded that she withdraw as a witness from the Driver lawsuit.
Perhaps they were trying to destroy her credibility so that when she appears as a witness they can attack her as a proven liar, not believable, and motivated by a vendetta against the university. But there is no report that they have a witness to attest to this, who would be the smoking gun. A jury could only conclude this by inference and circumstantial evidence.
It is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove her case. Without a motive, whatâs left is an administration that was sloppy in following its own procedures and bullying in its tactics. But is this a sufficient basis for damages to be awarded?
1 Like
I am not in the legal system but it seems to me that her testimony in the wrongful death suit should not be very pivotal. After all, they can prove whether the death was Pennâs fault without her. I just doubt that Penn will go to such lengths to discredit her when in the process is destroyng the credibility of its own admission process.
3 Likes
So the question that the jury will have to ponder is why Penn has gone to such lengths. In order to win a slander case, the plaintiff has to prove malice, which, I assume, is why her attorneys have gone to such lengths to show that the university acted with ulterior motives and demonstrated that by repeatedly making the case for a âsham investigationâ.
Perhaps Pennâs position is laid out in their legal response:
1)"Fierceton secured admission to undergraduate and graduate programs, financial aid packages, study abroad programs, and scholarship programs, among other benefits, through fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation by Fierceton, and as a result any operative agreements or contracts between Penn and Fierceton are void and unenforceable. " (p.78)
2)"A hearing panel was ultimately convened to hear charges that Fierceton violated the Universityâs Code of Academic Integrity and determine whether sanctions were warranted. The panel consisted of five members: three faculty members and two students, all from schools other than SP2. A hearing was held on November 15, 2021, at which Fierceton appeared.
The panel then made three recommendations for sanctions: (1) a retroactive suspension for the Spring 2021 academic semester, which was not actually imposed; (2) repayment of a portion of Fiercetonâs financial aid in the amount of $4,000; and (3) a requirement that Fierceton write aletter of acknowledgement and apology for misrepresenting her background in her MSW application. Fierceton was advised that she would have to fulfill her obligations under (2) and (3) before her graduate degree would be conferred. 80. In an August 3, 2021 letter, Penn gave Fierceton the opportunity to appeal the hearing panelâs determination to the School of Social Policy and Practiceâs Committee on Student Academic Standing. Fiercetonâs appeal is currently pending. " (p.77-78)
3 Likes
How much could she have misrepresented her financial situation if all they want is $4000 for her costs over 5-6 years (donât know how long the MSW program was)? 1% of a $400k education?
1 Like
Penn is the one who stands accused. So I guess they feel that their best defense is a good offense. 
1 Like