This is at the same time both wise and also completely misses the point. It’s true we do ultimately need skills and qualities, not facts. It’s also true that many facts taught at school is not needed in life. What the article seems to miss is

(i) that we need some context to teach the skills and facts people need — so we need some ‘traditional learning’ (‘how much?’ is the right question)

(ii) different people/careers need different things — so we cannot identify the 80%/20%

(iii) people often change their minds, and need a different 20% to the 20% they thought

(iv) you know, there is value in some things even if we do not need them — the move from focussing on the joy of knowing to the joy of not knowing seems to miss out on the unexpected; the amusing; the tangential; it reflects a planned, theory driven world that is blind of the more subtle complexities of life.

mmm…. just re-read that. I stand by the first three, but the fourth seems a bit harsh. Perhaps the original post is really trying to clear the clutter from life, so make more room for spontaneity, serendipity. I think I got a little carried away there. There certainly is too much clutter in the world — but for me, the solution is not to shy away from facts — but to shy away from ill-informed places (Fox News, anyone?) or places where the good content is outweighed by the dross (Facebook? Twitter?), and to try to stay in a profession where short-term pressure and financial goals are not dominant (being in a great school, as an educator, for example).