Disclaimer: I come from a part 61 background and have a non-aviation college degree.

I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to offer, but I agree with Mustache in that piloting skill (take that to mean whatever you'd like) depends on the individual. There's nothing a dedicated aviation student can't learn on their own and from a good flight instructor that they would otherwise learn in a college aviation program. Personally, I've never struggled through any portion of 121 training despite never having taken a formal class on CRM. I've trained several students (through the same part 61 program I completed) who are now airline pilots. They all tell me the same thing. I've ridden in a jumpseat with one of them and couldn't have felt safer with them at the controls.

That being said, there were ERAU/UND graduates in my class who always felt behind in class and did poorly during their sim training and on their check rides. There were also plenty of part 61 people who had zero issues throughout the process.

Marx, the study you mentioned may reflect the tendency of aviation grads to be better employees, but that does not necessarily indicate that they are any more skilled or any safer than those who came through other training routes. In fact, could the data in that study obscure the fact that some pilots come to work sick and/or fatigued for various reasons? Their attendance may be good, but could that negatively affect safety? I'm not trying to start an argument, but I want to point out that a reliable pilot (ostensibly as a product of their training) does not necessarily make a better or safer pilot.

I don't think any amount of research could definitively show that one training route is superior to another. I also think that no everyone is meant to be a pilot (feel free to throw your rotten tomatoes if you must ). It all comes down to the individual.