Grading on a Curve

I thought it would be interesting to revisit the Federal Reserve's stress test measures used to give the banks a strong bill of health, which added confidence to the markets and helped to attract much-needed private capital back into those financial institutions. The results showed that the largest 19 banks in the country would have to raise in aggregate approximately 75 billion to withstand the 'Alternative More Adverse' scenario metrics. Here were the official measurements as released on February 25, 2009:

1. Percent change in annual average.
2. Baseline forecasts for real GDP and the unemployment rate equal the average of projections released by Consensus Forecasts, Blue Chip, and Survey of Professional Forecasters in February.
3. Annual average.
4. Case‐Shiller 10‐City Composite, percent change, fourth quarter of the previous year to fourth quarter of the year indicated.

The results of this test were released less than one month ago on May 7 (though unofficially leaked during the preceding weeks). Full details of the stress test results can be found here:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20090507a1.pdf

Well, here we are on June 6, and we are starting to get indications of where these metrics are trending:

Real GDP: Q4 2008 - Q1 2009 was -5.7%

Civilian Unemployment Rate: 8.5% (average of monthly Jan – May rate); most recent month was 9.4%

House Prices: Q1 2008 – Q1 2009 was -19.0% (note the one month 10 city index from March 2008 to March 2009 comparison was -18.6%, which was the headline number in the press)

Seems to me the stress test was designed to give an 'A' on a test they knew the banks would only be able to score a 'C' at best. Grading on a curve can be problematic if the results give a false sense of accomplishment, as inevitably real ability is exposed over time. Hopefully I'm wrong about what this test means.