Reply to comment

Hey guys. When I was thinking back to our discussion last Tuesdsay I found it interesting that the group kept coming back to the question of where we set the limit on diversity. I think most would agree that it is beneficial to have different opinions and backgrounds represented in such a place as a college, and that likewise this may have some link to the degree of racial or religious diversity present on a campus. However, where do we draw the line of diversity?  Many argued that theoretically if we strive for more diversity, especially when talking about mental diversity, we must also include diversity of intelligence. What is the difference, some may ask, in accepting students who are unable to perform at high levels in academics under the assumption that they will provide a type of intellectual diversity, and accepting students of different backgrounds to provide for "opinion" diversity? And along those lines, and bringing up something someone mentioned I think during our broken brain discussion, who is to say that people who speak different languages would not also provide a degree of diversity? It is easy to see how this type of diversity might prove to be a seperating and confusing rather than a uniting and creating factor. However, I don't think that these examples undermine the entirety of the diversity = productivity equation.

It seems that there should simply be a limit set on this equation, a set population of individuals for which this equation could ring true, and I think that limit is the ability for communication. The reason that diversity which increases productivity cannot work for populations of individuals who do not speak the same language is the simple lack of ability to communicate. The benefits of diversity in problem solving tasks would not be present in a group in which they were unable to speak and understand eachother. However, if these people were solving a math problem, or a problem in some more international set of symbols, one might assume that the language issue would dissapear.

This takes us to our next issue, however; that of intellectual diversity. Let's say that the group of individuals is in fact solving a mathamatical problem, but the type of diversity present at the meeting is that of intellectual diversity, that is some display a very high level of mathamatical understanding and ability and others are not able to understand even simple mathamatical concepts. This is not to say that those who cannot understand mathamatical concepts are "stupid" but simply that in this particular subject they are not proficient. Clearly in this type of setting the group would not progress because those who were able to understand the problem would not gain any benefit from those who did not. I would argue that the same applies to a college setting. Because the object of this type of academic grouping is to communicate ideas (both from professor to student and among students) and to learn, those who were not able to communicate at this intellectual level would not serve to benefit from or give benefits to the community as a whole. For diversity to increase productivity, those in the group must be able to communicate not only with the same language (math, speach or otherwise) but also must be able to communicate on the same level. When the group is within the limits of ability to communicate, I see no reason why the equation suggested by Page would not ring true in almost any setting.