The OP should forgive that little tirade since you didn't bother to read his post first. Everyone will NOT do well. Even with an 87%, it's possible to get a C in some of these classes where the teachers throw out numerical scores and grade based on comparative judging. "Oh, Johnny got a 91%, but Susie got a 91.9%. Let's give Susie a B and give Johnny a C." That's how it works in these kinds of classes with ridiculous peer curves.
People need to tear off their rose-colored glasses here. It's not the OP at fault, it's these kinds of mind games generated by good-for-nothing professors who get off on having a competitive class environment where students know that if they help a classmate, it might end up hurting them. I never understood why professors do that. What's to lose by having a cohesive class where people help each other, knowing it's possible that they'll ALL get A's. Most of my pre-reqs were like that. In Chem I and Chem II, we all helped one another. If someone didn't understand something, four other people would try to explain it to him. In classes where only a handful will get A's and only a handful will get B's, why would any of you expect someone to help someone else, knowing that you could very well end up with a C, not because of grades but because of a pathetic curve that some pathetic professor uses?
I say give people what they deserve. Don't curve down and (I may catch some heat for this) don't curve up either to make it fair. A student gets what a student gets. If you're a decent enough teacher, you won't have to screw with the curve because you'll more than likely get an average in the B-/C+ range anyway.
Um, they don't give +/-'s at my school. It's straight-up A, B, C, D, F. And we knew going into the class that only two people would get an A.