I did not mean to imply that a formal arts education is necessary to train a great artist. But you seem to be saying that great artists don't need any education or training at all!
Hemingway did not spring to life a great writer. He might have only completed high school, but high school was enough to get him a reporting job at age 18, and it was a reporting job that sent him to Paris, where he found Gertrude Stein, Ezra Pound, James Joyce, F Scott Fitzgerald. I would call that an education.
The original point I tried to make was this: by expecting all poor and middle-class kids to spend their formative years preparing for practical, low-risk careers -- at the expense of their artistic "passions" -- we are depriving ourselves of their creative output.
Things were different 100 years ago. If Hemingway didn't go to college, it was because he didn't need to. He was lucky enough to live at a time when you could work as a journalist at age 18 having no greater qualifications than a high school diploma and a few articles published in the school newspaper.
What would Hemingway do today? Following gist's advice, he would go to college and study computer science or biomedical engineering. Or maybe he would substitute San Fransisco for Paris, and instead of A Farewell To Arms we would have another social-some-shit to add to the cannon of timeless iPhone apps.
But study journalism or English literature with a view towards becoming a reporter or (gasp) a fiction writer? Out of the question. You know those majors won't go anywhere. You need to earn a living.