... since the creative people have to all go get jobs since they were turned down when they applied to become professional students.
Speaking as someone who considers himself a "creative", I was never "turned down" applying to school. Schools (save some of the elite institutions) aren't in the business of turning down customers. If you show up the folks send the tuition check on time, they don't care if you're creative or not.
Rather, the difference is that a "creative" is likely to not want to go to school but is more interested in discovering their own path to their career goals. That might include school, but not necessarily.
I have interviewed at places where they discriminate *against* folks that went to school and also the other way around. What this says to me is that there are plenty of opportunities for people of varying abilities out there. There is no "brain-dead" workforce, only one that is misled.
If this were not the case, we wouldn't have movies such as Dead Poet's Society, Kill Your Darlings, A Beautiful Mind, and on and on. These movies are interesting because they introduce scenarios where the creatives that have ended up on a path of little creativity are allowed to learn in ways contradictory to the traditional methods.
What improved creativity testing gives us is the ability to identify individuals that test highly in other areas but also test as highly creative. Traditionally, that creativity might not get noticed and they go on to college and flunk out because it's nowhere near stimulating enough. Some of them may still go on to do great things (see the list of college dropout billionaires), but had that creativity been noticed in the first place, they might have chosen a more appropriate path to begin with.
I 100% regret trying (twice) to go back to school after high school. I would have been much better served by jumping into the workforce instead. Literally, the most valuable thing I learned was how to apply for a loan. Everything else was remedial.