I imagine that's probably what the author would argue, but I'm not convinced that should be the only option. You can get a masters in a lot of different fields without needing a bachelors in the same subject. The question is whether CS should be an exception or not. He seems to value the MS more as a research-track degree and not as a professional degree. I'd argue the opposite: If you're research-track you really don't need to be getting an MS, just go straight to the PhD. That's how most top programs operate anyways.