In response to this TedX talk by Eddy Zhong:
There should not be a clear duality of life choice as defined by these two paths, and I do not believe that it is suggested that a creative path is superior; it is only that the academic path is flawed and inadequate to serve the needs of a human. There are clear benefits to academic education as well. However academic performance is given far too much credit and is a product of an antiquated and inefficient education system which does not necessarily nurture the natural talents of a student. We spend far too much time learning things that have little relevance to our lives or careers.
A purely academic career that views lives and concepts as a collection of purely mechanical and measurable components dangerously separates mankind from the natural and creative world from which he/she biologically originates from. Without appropriate application of academic pursuits to the real world, the optimal leverage of applied knowledge cannot be achieved.
We should encourage students to discover their own strengths, purpose and natural talents through exploration of individual creativity, and integrate targeted and appropriate adoption of technical academic knowledge in a tailored fashion to each individual’s natural inclinations in such a way that we may optimise their abilities. Nurture our nature, not balance the influences of nature vs nurture as opposites, as we well know they are deeply interconnected.