AAAARGGHH

[fahye]

There should be a rule. Or a law. Or something. People setting undergraduate assignments should not be stupid and should be forced to proofread before they hand a third-year psychology class a data set that is not only based on an incredibly poorly-designed experiment, but contains analyses that are not only missing a whole lot of stuff that would be really helpful, considering what we're trying to examine, but also wrong. Because they have omitted, inexplicably, three points from a six-point scale and then tried to pretend that one can plausibly run statistical analyses comparing this mean to two other means from scales that actually did use all six points.

(Look, I don't care if that made sense to you or not, I just need to vent.)

So far my Discussion section contains nothing except for a dot-point list of 'suggestions for improvement of future experimental design'.

One of which is: 'Well, the correlations are FUCKED, aren't they?'

My academic-speak is evaporating through the sheer force of how pissed off I am. This is worth 50% of my semester grade, I have two other assignments to be working on, and I do not have time for this shit.

*mutters darkly*