What are his main points:
We might consider a PhD version of this. It wouldn't be the same, because creative writing and critical scholarship in the humanities are not identical. Still, I honestly don't see the objections to this article, aside from a tasteless joke about child abuse.
Writers are born with talent.
If you didn't decide to take writing seriously by the time you were a teenager, you're probably not going to make it.
If you complain about not having time to write, please do us both a favor and drop out.
If you aren't a serious reader, don't expect anyone to read what you write.
No one cares about your problems if you're a shitty writer.
You don't need my help to get published.
It's not important that people think you're smart.
My list would start like this:
You probably shouldn't get a PhD in literature (foreign language or English) if you only read the books assigned to you by your professors.
If you don't have serious interest both in literature of the past and in your own contemporaries...
From a follow up interview:
People think you're an asshole for saying some people have more talent than others.
In what part of life is this not true?