No, it’s not. But it’s UPenn’s definition. They’re the ones who created it. Take it up with them.
1 Like
Still waiting for anything to support this assertion. Some students enrolled at UPenn used it. Doesn’t mean the University did.
1 Like
Yes and I think that Penn shares the blame for allowing this to happen. At many institutions (not just elites, but those do provide enormous support), candidates for these prestigious scholarships are identified early on, and moulded by the university into the ideal candidate, with opportunities presented to them that will ultimately enhance their candidacy, and extensive individual mentorship by professors (that certainly happened to D’s freshman year roommate, who won a Rhodes after being singled out at the start of her sophomore year, and she acknowledged as much in her interviews).
S went through the process this year (he was a Marshall finalist, hence my amusement that MF should have taken that scholarship and avoided the publicity and resulting scrutiny) at a college that was dramatically less supportive (so everything he did was at his own initiative and he had no ongoing mentorship at all) and we felt that put him at a meaningful disadvantage.
Given that, I think colleges like Penn, which provide such a high level of support, bear a correspondingly greater burden to verify that the candidates they are putting forward are representing themselves honestly right from the point at which they are selected as potential future candidates. I’m disappointed but not surprised to see that MF’s scholarship advisers/recommenders appear to still be supporting her, but wonder how much this is because they would otherwise have to admit that they themselves didn’t do the fact checking of her story which should have been done originally.
2 Likes
She neither spent her childhood bouncing around the foster care system or faced economic hardship growing up. That is fact!
She advanced a narrative on a variety of applications and publications that she had spent her childhood bouncing around the foster care system and faced economic hardship growing up. That is a fact!
As a result of these facts she was found to have misrepresented her background.
That is all there is to this story as it relates to the Rhodes Scholarship. Everything else is noise or subterfuge.
1 Like
I’m struggling with the need to keep this thread open, since it’s simply a handful of users saying the same thing over and over and over and over. It is unlikely that any opinions will be changed. But for the moment, I’ll just slow the discussion down.
5 Likes
Growing up, there was a quaint quip I remember about property lines, “mowing or owning?”
It seems Penn wants to have an expansive definition of first gen for purposes of virtue signaling when it reports or advertises about diversity and opportunity for underrepresented groups. Whether that definition holds true as a true admissions hook is another question. When they are called to the mat like in this instance, they are “shocked, shocked”.
4 Likes
I was not saying this was acceptable behavior. I was simply acknowledging the problem. I also believe in total honesty and transparency and taught my children to never exaggerate.
The current competition to appear more deserving due to circumstances only exists because it is rewarded. Greater vetting needs to be done so those whose accomplishments genuinely need to be understood in context can be evaluated properly. Too many abuse or misrepresent their circumstances as a result of this development.
Considering circumstances over academic preparedness makes more sense for undergraduate applicants, but after four years in an elite program, an Ivy prospect for graduate and elite opportunities should be able to compete on academic merit.
1 Like
It’s on the FGLI section of the university’s own website. This is an official university organization, directed and run by multiple paid university staff. I don’t know who technically crafted the words, but it was done under Penn’s sponsorship and they now publish it on their official website for all the world to see as their view of FGLI. I’m not aware of them presenting any other definition.
Are you ‘troubled’ bcos you are leaning towards teh daughter’s claims as must be true? Perhaps she was injured (somehow), went to the hospital, and acquired sepsis while in that same hospital? Nosocomial infections – health care-acquired infection – are common. Without confidential medical records we have no way of knowing the reason for the lengthy hospital stay – only conjecture. Without ‘facts in evidence’…
1 Like
No, I am troubled because of a childhood filled with abuse and the survival techniques children & young adults use in order to cope with such difficult circumstances.
Many resort to substance abuse, while others engage in other types of comforting behaviors that mask their daily reality.
Even if that “childhood full of abuse” was false, according to family members living in the home, school mates, and the police?
While that is plausible for say law school or medical school, it can never be the sole criteria for the most selective scholarships like Rhodes. Arguably for some subjects like STEM, a first author publication in a prestigious journal might be a way of distinguishing on “academic merit”. But for someone in other subjects like social science, their impact in the community (either within or outside their university) has to be measured as well. And if you are doing that, why not judge candidates’ potential ability to “change the world”.
There are just vastly too many 4.0 candidates for the few dozen scholarships available to use pure academics. And would you really choose the one who had 20 A+ grades over the one who had 15 A+ grades because they were academically “superior”?
1 Like
Except even that claim has no corroborating evidence.
5 Likes
If the history of anything else was written by someone who was directly involved without independent corroborations from disintersted parties, we wouldn’t give it too much credence, would we? If the personal history was written by oneself without independent corroborations from disinterested parties, why should anyone (college admissions, award/scholarship committees, etc.) give it much credence?
1 Like
This is a direct quote from the Rhodes decision having investigated the hospital stay.
“Fierceton remained in the hospital for twenty-two days, claiming to be suffering from dizziness and an inability to walk”
No mention of a specific diagnosis related to the alleged abuse.
3 Likes
I’m an RN and we have plenty of patients in the hospital who are medically cleared for discharge but end up staying for MONTHS because they have nowhere to be safely discharged to. My patients are adults, but I could see how a minor who is accusing a parent of abuse would be kept inpatient longer than medically necessary because the social worker/case manager is struggling with finding a safe place for her to go.
2 Likes
We don’t know if she really was in and out of the foster system but I think there is enough evidence to show her early life was probably pretty rough. A guardian ad litem was assigned to her when her parents were divorcing. The is very unusual and only happens if the court feels the child need separate representation because there is so much animosity between the parents that the court needs help in protecting the child’s interests. I don’t know if she was 4 or 8 or 10 when her parents divorced, but it does seem to have been traumatic to her. Maybe she was bounced back and forth or maybe stayed with other relatives during this time which she interpreted to being in ‘foster care’ (which in my state, kinship placements are ‘foster care’).
I do think those things can be simultaneously true and in fact are true in this case. I also believe that as a foster kid, she ‘entitled’ to a new start, that she could apply to college as an independent student with no reference to her parents or their financial abilities, their educational background, any privileges they may have given her as a young child.
However, it is really unlikely that she was living the perfect country club life one day and then was put into foster care the next. It’s more likely things weren’t perfect for a long time and they suddenly blew up. I’m sure there was tension long before she was 17. The application asks for students to explain some of their background and she did use some of those experiences. Maybe her parents fought about money and she felt poor, that they didn’t give her money for school events or buy her the clothing or equipment her friends had and blamed her for costs of some things. She shouldn’t have exaggerate them, but maybe those essays reflected how she remembered her childhood as being traumatic, of staying in ‘many’ foster homes (or homes that weren’t her own), of not having money. Do 17 year olds exaggerate their experiences when asked to ‘describe a time you overcame adversity’? Yes, they do. Every death they’ve experience is not soul crushing, even of a favorite grandparent. Every football game loss wasn’t life altering, but the schools want to read essays full of SAT words, and that’s how you get into elite colleges. They don’t want to read “I went to foster care but it was no big deal.”
I do think MF was a pawn between two warring parents. The name change, the GAL appointed, the calls to police. It doesn’t seem that either parent likes her very much.
It is also interesting to read the articles and announcements made when she won the Rhodes, by both the Rhodes committee and by Penn. No question they both loved the backstory and are embarrassed and feel duped. The schools and Rhodes committee don’t have time to vet every application, but they do have the time to vet the finalists, those getting big awards. They didn’t do their due dilligence. I think they could have worked with her to clarify some of her statements without blowing up the whole thing. Was she in foster care? Yes. Did she feel abused? Yes Do others feels differently about the same facts? Yes.
I think it is mistake to judge foster kids and who is ‘more’ of a foster kid than someone else, and don’t agree with the other student quoted who said she wasn’t as much a foster kid as he was. Now who is judging? No question some have better situations than others but we can’t know how they internalize it. Here was an honor student who was president of her class and suddenly she’s in foster care with her family’s issues aired. I’m sure everyone at school was talking about her and she was embarrassed. She didn’t collapse or run, she survived.
7 Likes
The problem with relying upon one’s " lived experience " as opposed to actual facts is that anyone can have or invent trauma, and that deprives others, some of whom actually suffered real trauma, of benefits ( such as Questbridge, Rhodes, study abroad scholarships). It also minimizes the experience of those who actually suffered. Saying your parents didn’t give you a big enough allowance is not the same as saying you were poor, and it is insulting to those who really are poor. They are right to judge when their trauma is appropriated by others for personal gain.
7 Likes
I understand your reply and should clarify what I meant by academic merit.
Academic merit for graduate study and a scholarship program like Rhodes should incorporate consideration of preparedness and ability to use the education best. These are limited opportunities, and grades are not the only indication of ability to do the work and make contributions.
Choice and direction of studies, areas and depth of research, and intent of future studies are all relevant factors in determining deservedness. I imagine needs in advancing certain research given emerging problems and potential application of gained knowledge/skills also are important depending on the field.
Circumstances of one’s background may provide candidates with tenacity, empathy, and character, but these should already be evident in the performance and trajectory of adult students’ studies, application of those studies, and convincing dedication to stated goals based on past achievements to be considered. I don’t know how committees could fairly evaluate the impact such circumstances should have otherwise.
1 Like
We do know she wasn’t in and out of the foster care system. She was placed in foster care for about a year when she was 17.
We don’t know what the realities were of the level of abuse, if any, when she was younger. Or the details of the divorce/custody arrangements. Iirc we know that the divorce happened when she was 8. There were pre-existing allegations of abuse v dad. A guardian ad litem was appointed, which per MO law is mandatory is cases of alleged abuse, and optional in other cases. See random attorney website describing law : The Role of the Guardian ad Litem in a Missouri Family Court Case — St. Charles Divorce Lawyer Blog — June 21, 2013. It is unclear if this was a mandatory or discretionary appointment, or whether anyone made any allegations of abuse against mom at the time of the divorce. Or for that matter, any time up to her hospitalization when she was 17.
I think (?) mom was awarded full custody, which I presume was the GAL’s recommendation, and suggests to me that there weren’t credible allegations of abuse against mom. But it also seems the allegations of abuse re dad were never subject to any evidentiary hearing.
Interesting point above re: MF not being released from the hospital unless she had a place to go. That sounds right based on my experience in mental health holds (totally different context). The conclusion I reach from that is, without looking at the medical records, the length of stay can’t be used to confirm abuse if unadjudicated allegations of abuse (which we know were pending) existed at the time. She wouldn’t have been released, no matter the cause of her injuries.
2 Likes