This is really interesting:
https://catalog.upenn.edu/pennbook/code-of-academic-integrity/
They didn’t help themselves with any of this or the rest of it either.
From the DocumentCloud report, the student described herself as being in foster care “throughout her life” in a travel abroad application.
“Applying for the William A. Levi Travel Fellowship, which, if granted, would have enabled Fierceton to travel abroad in the summer of 2017, she wrote: “After bouncing around the foster care system throughout my life, my desire to gain a deeper understanding of myself as a global citizen has only deepened.”
Being in foster care for two years doesn’t allow you to rewrite your whole life story.
Penn’s response describes how they believe she violated the “principles and spirit” of the code, rather than the “non-exhaustive examples”:
Basically this comes back to the Rhodes scholarship. Penn is extremely embarrassed because withdrawal of a scholarship is pretty much unprecedented and they are concerned that their future applicants will be viewed more skeptically if they are not seen to take this very seriously.
And it seems highly likely that Fierceton would have sued them over the loss of the Rhodes scholarship whether or not they had taken those further actions, which in practice were very modest (she just has to apologize and pay back $4000, ie ~1% of what they’ve given her over the years, then she gets her masters degree)
It’s too bad that UPenn didn’t live up to these same standards themselves in how they handled this case, repeatedly violating their own procedures.
That’s a conclusory statement for which you cite no supporting evidence. Having read both the complaint and the response, to me at least her case seems weak. If I were her, I would also worry that she may find it difficult to elicit sympathy from a jury if it does go to trial. And the press coverage so far is pretty terrible for her (unsurprisingly given that withdrawal of a Rhodes scholarship is almost unprecedented). She’s not going to get a settlement which will come anywhere close to compensating her for the damage she has inflicted on herself through this lawsuit. It would have been much better to move on and keep it quiet.
I believe she won the Marshall as well but accepted the Rhodes.
There was more than that, too. She stated she lived in 6 different places after she was removed from the home. There were only 3 actual foster placements, one of which she arranged herself. She alleged that she was forced out of the system when she turned 18, when the MO system extends to 25. She voluntarily left, and she chose to continue living with her placement until she left for Penn.
She made claims about financially supporting her sister that appear unfounded. She does have a younger half sister from her father’s second marriage who has a disability, but there is no evidence that she financially supported her. She described in her applications being part of a group of 5 foster kids (which she said were called “the fab five” or “fantastic five” depending upon where she wrote it) who had varying outcomes, but there is no evidence she ever had a placement where that happened, and she refused to provide any additional information to support her allegations. She claimed that in the system she only had a garbage bag of donated clothes, when actually there was a mechanism to get her belongings from her home. She alleged that she knew all of police officers by name because they had come to her home so often as a child (she admitted that wasn’t true; the officers came as part of the court process of having a guardian ad litem appointed for her during her parents’ divorce and an allegation of abuse regarding her step father that were not substantiated). A cousin lived in the home and said she did not witness abuse. High school mates reported that the version of her life reported in the Rhodes story was not consistent with her circumstances at the time. She admitted she made up titles and job responsibilities for herself for a non-profit she volunteered at that was started by her step mother. Her step mother said all she did was organize one fundraiser that didn’t raise any funds. When asked about it, Fierceton said her step mother had it out for her and shouldn’t be believed.
If there were one or maybe two of the above statements in her applications, that would be one thing, but the cumulative material misrepresentations set her apart from the typical applicant puffery.
There was also the thing about her changing her name - which made it impossible for the school to verify her story on its own.
Wow, that’s one of the most disastrous life decisions of all time. I bet she would have got away with it without the Rhodes publicity. She’s clearly very convincing in person, even getting some of her fellow Rhodes winners to submit letters of support on her behalf. It reminds me of Elizabeth Holmes.
It seems to me that Elizabeth Holmes deluded everyone, including herself, about her company’s prospects. If she knew she was a fraud, she would have sold stock to rake in profits for herself. But she didn’t.
In contrast, I believe this young woman knows she is a fraud, and an extremely talented one at that.
Theranos was never publicly traded. What shares could Holmes sell? I’m not sure this is the right analogy to Fierceton’s issues.
and in writing, too.
In highly valued private companies, founders are sometimes allowed to sell a small share of their stock to other private investors. In the case where the founders are not wealthy to begin with, letting them put a few million in the bank can actually be good for everyone as it removes financial insecurity and lets them concentrate on growing the business. Of course, that depends upon it being a viable business, which Theranos never was.
I wouldn’t want her as a social worker and I hope no one hires her as one.
Wow @CateCAParent — those details were certainly not fleshed out in the Chronicles of Higher Education article that started this thread.
Now I am starting to see a possible pattern of her going completely “scorched earth” when she believes she has been wronged 
And in fact the therapist that was treating her and the mother for years following the divorce claimed she was manipulative and abusive to her mother. Another therapist disagreed, but all the allegations are painting a picture of a deeply troubled young woman.
Possibly. On the other hand, MF may have become so wrapped up in her own self-delusion that she believed it, like Holmes. If she knew she was lying then accepting a Rhodes, with all the scrutiny that would entail, was a very foolish decision. Consider this statement in the Rhodes report:
“MF and her lawyers argue that MF has ‘constructed not a narrative about herself for the purpose of deceiving others, but an identity for herself for the purpose of giving her the strength and stability she needs to thrive despite the many, protracted traumas of her childhood’”
As the famous saying goes: “the key thing in acting is honesty. Once you know how to fake that, you’ve got it made!”
I believe there’s a term in psychology for this (can’t recall what). Essentially, if a person keeps repeating a lie over and over again and continues to build and perfect a story around it - over time they internalize it so much that they actually believe it to be true.
I expect the Rhodes will now expect applicants to prove every line in their application. Some top-tier finance companies do that already.
Yes, I cite no supporting evidence because I’ve spent too much time on this thread already, because I’ve stated it in past posts, and because it’s all in her legal brief which has been linked.
For starters, Penn met with her without representation - not her designated rep or anyone else - which is contrary to their own procedures. Secondly, they notified Rhodes of their concerns generated by the e-mail without notifying her. You don’t even need to have written procedures to see how wrong and unethical that is. They initiated an investigation based on an anonymous e-mail. Where I’ve worked anonymous e-mails aren’t taken seriously because they are unverifiable. There is a long list of their sloppiness, their failure to advocate and provide guidance for their own student, and their procedural missteps.
I completely agree with you that her case is going to be hard to win and have said so in earlier posts. If for no other reason, it will be because she has to prove malice with clear and convincing evidence. Proving someone’s intent without a witness or without documentary evidence is a losing proposition most of the time.
Penn had a legal obligation to notify the Rhodes trust; in nominating an applicant, Penn agreed to update as necessary.
Colleges do not need to have lawyers present when interviewing their students.
Good thing Penn and the Rhodes trust took the anonymous email seriously or this fraud may not have been exposed. Employers are free to investigate or ignore allegations against employees at their own risk. As counsel, I always suggest investigating. It is far worse to be advised of something horrible and choose to ignore it than to engage in a bit of investigation, even if it proves unnecessary ultimately.