I think it's fairly coherent. He says that Students are more affected by cultural than market forces as they are being educated. And that cultural forces are science/hard work hostile.

What I disagree with is the implication that some how the market forces are science friendly (i.e. the need for scientists and engineers translates into good working conditions, opportunity, etc.). Unfortunately this is not so much the case.

He says it, as if it were true, without any evidence or even argument other than "I said so" to support whether these cultural forces have any effect on outcomes. As someone elsewhere points out, he does reference poor outcomes, but that doesn't mean he's made any argument other than hand-waving.

Also,

"Back in 2003, the National Science Board issued a report that noted steep declines in "graduate enrollments of U.S. citizens and permanent residents" in the sciences. The explanation? "Declining federal support for research sends negative signals to interested students." That seems unlikely, in that the alleged decline hasn't dampened the enthusiasm of students from all around the world for our country's graduate programs."

Almost stopped reading there. I can think of 10 reasons why that's stupid reasoning.

Yes I agree that was some weak reasoning on his part.

OK, explain how they don't 'mean anything'.

The guys is expressing his opinion. No doubt in somewhat vague terms, but I feel like I have a good sense of what he means.

Also it's easy to say to anyone who expresses an opinion to back it up with a rigorous scientific study. But that can simply be a rhetorical technique to limit discussion.

The virtue of sustainability...what does sustainable mean? Stable, static. Progress means dynamic and changing, it means being forced to adapt when things have changed in a direction you didn't plan.

Okay, what about the society? Chromosomes can't be changed. You can't change your race or gender or who your parents were, so how can you judge someone based on those things? Scientific progress is made by human minds. Arguing about getting more women/blacks/jews/gays/who-ever into a field isn't helpful. It doesn't advance science, it turns it into a meta-discussion about people who do science.

I see a lot of meaning in both, and I haven't even started reading the article yet (I'll do it after I grab a coffee.)

He's talking like a mathematics professor who states some of the steps of his proof and expects the students to be smart enough to fill in the blanks and see his logic :-P