For two things to be the same you have to be able to subsitute one for the other without a dissonance.
You were able to ask the question only by separating Academic Ability and Intelligence.
A definition of each of those would be most helpful. After all we cannot measure anything without a commensurable standard; a ruler.
Back in the days of the original Academy you had an association of people asking questions of each other and going through a process of discovery. Socrates mostly asked pointed questions that isolated the statements of others and pointed to flaws that invalidated their assertions.
Today an academic is associated with scholars in some institution of learning such as a college and the degree to which they are accepted or rejected by their peers is a matter of orthodoxy.
Notice I have not mentioned "intelligence" in any of the above?
I like the Forrest Gump approach to intelligence. If Stupid is as Stupid does is true then the opposite of that must also be true. Intelligence is as intelligence does. In my definition of intelligence there has to be an action and a result to intelligence. Idle chatter doesn't count.
The ability of an Academic is usually measured by how well they teach and what they publish.
I'd take the ability to teach above the ability to publish. The students who come away from a Professor's lectures on fire with questions and the desire to learn more have just encountered intelligence.
The bottom line? Intelligence results in changes. Those changes can be in things or people. But, an improvement results. Intelligence cannot be ignored or idle.
An Academic is not idle and impacts students. The net result of that impact determines how intelligent the academic is.
Is that clear as mud or what?
If mine was an intelligent comment there will be a positive reaction and further stimulus. If my comment just lies there like a turd on the hissing summer lawn----the opposite applies.
Terry
