Made of win.

moonlightalice and I used her Groupon to get shellac mani/pedis yesterday. THEY ARE AWESOME.

That is all.

(Okay, no, that's not all. There is UV involved which makes me nervous, but the polish is so perfect and perfectly applied and it supposedly lasts forever, so I'm really excited about doing this again. You know, once or twice annually because did I mention the UV?)

Statistics work only if I have a reference point

So I did poorly on a chemistry test this week. I'm not fussed about it for a number of reasons--I've done well on other tests, this is a course I'm not sure I need, I've already taken it so I'm not concerned about knowledge I don't have. What I am is confused. I figured I'd throw this out to the people I know who know stats better than I ever have, do, or will.

Our grades are computed based on "z-scores," as befits a curve (apparently) that takes into account the fact we can drop one grade. This score equals [my score]-[test average]/standard deviation. The average z-scores of the class are then ranked. This is all well and good, but what rank/score equals what grade is not specifically ever stated. They say they chart the z-score averages, presumably on a histogram, and wherever there is a "break" in the graph--meaning a significant drop in the numbers of people at a given average z-score--there will be a change in letter grade. But since you have no idea where those breaks will be until all the tests are counted, including the final...what the hell will your grade be?

This is a useless way of keeping track of how well I'm doing. Also, pardon me and my non-statistical thinking here, but how does grading people based on how much better/worse they are than their peers accurately value what they've learned? This is not a new problem I know--this is the curse of the curve--but still!