Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement?

A 2001 U.S. workshop with the title “Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science (NBIC): Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance” introduced the convergence of various sciences and technologies based on their nanoscale properties. It highlighted BIC as the science and technologies converging on the nanoscale. However many other sciences and technologies with nanoscale components exist, such as chemistry and material sciences. Furthermore the workshop chose human performance enhancement as its case study of application despite various other possible applications that could have been chosen. This paper addresses the questions why the workshop organizers (a) introduced nanoscale as a convergence concept, (b) chose BIC as the convergence examples and (c) chose human performance enhancement as their application. The paper provides some thoughts as to the success and consequences of that strategy.     

Weshalb die Separierung von Produktivitätseffekten und Diskriminierung bei der studentischen Lehrveranstaltungsbewertung misslingt

In their article “Mein(schöner)Prof.de. The Physical Attractiveness of Academic Staff and Its Influence on Evaluations by Students”, Ulrich Rosar and Markus Klein try to show that attractive teachers don’t perform better in the classroom. There are three objections against their conclusion from the empirical analyses based on data from the online platform MeinProf.de: the high selectivity of the used sample, the missing control for relevant covariates as well as the choice of the modeling strategy and the interpretation of the statistical models. These arguments are also backed with data of “real” students’ evaluations of teaching at the LMU Munich. It is recommended to use such “real” students’ evaluations of teaching instead of selective samples from online platforms and to (consistently) include relevant confounding factors, which seem to be relevant from a theoretical and empirical perspective, such as the students’ prior interest in the topic of the course and the course type into the analyses. Furthermore, it is suggested to clearly separate statistical detectability of effects from their practical relevance.     

Attraktivität, Reziprozität und Lehrveranstaltungsevaluation

In this article we investigate the relationship between academic teachers’ attractiveness and their students’ evaluations of teaching. Furthermore it is examined, whether teachers’ grading influences students’ evaluations of teaching. Using data from an experimental design, hypotheses about attractiveness effects, frog-pond-effects, moderating gender effects and influences of grading are empirically tested. Controlling for confounding factors we find a very weak attractiveness effect, which can partly, but not only be ascribed to beauty’s productivity enhancing influence. Thereby, independently from the raters’ sex, female teachers profit from their looks. In contrast to that attractive male teachers are even sanctioned more strongly by their students for difficult tests than unattractive teachers. The frog-pond-hypothesis cannot empirically be supported: the attractiveness of teachers’ colleagues has no influence on the attractiveness effect. However, reciprocal evaluation behavior can consistently be found in the theoretical expected manner. It is substantially more relevant for students’ evaluations of teaching than attractiveness effects are. Alternative explanations for this grading effect can be excluded.     

Zur Messung von Forschungsqualit?t

This paper deals with the Forschungsrating (RWR) by the German Wissenschaftsrat (WR) in sociology. The WR??s objective in conducting this pilot study was to test a practice which allows a sophisticated assessment of the research facilities in Germany. Basically, two theses are exhibited towards the RWR in this paper: First, it seems possible that the published results are neither objective, nor reliable or valid because of implicit assessment procedures by the reviewers. Second we ask, whether a simple model of scientific quality, composed of a few quantitative indicators, yields similar results compared with the RWR. To empirically address these aspects, data of the RWR and our own standardized survey on the reputation of German research facilities is analyzed. Furthermore we conducted interviews with members of the group of reviewers. The results show that problems concerning the objectivity of analysis cannot be excluded. Our general conclusion about the reliability of the measurement, limited to the inner consistency of the quantitative indicators, is positive. A satisfactory reproduction of the RWR??s results solely based on quantitative data cannot be achieved. This is interpreted as a sign of minor validity. It is concluded that the amount and quality of data collected in the RWR, as well as the standardization of the rating process need to be improved.