BalancedVuePt

This is good advice. The kind of degree means nothing.

Yoda2

It is disheartening that experienced aviators give freely of their time here, when we all probably have something better to do, and it goes in one ear and out the other... We are simply attempting to offer what career guidance we can and save those from the many pitfalls that exist. Some bits of advice are from our own mistakes or misfortune, some are from others and some are from those who have had golden careers. I really appreciate that JNB and Burke are especially active and right on with dispensing their own brands of advice for newbies. One common thread that is important and noticeable from JNB's posts is his continually reminding that there are myriad jobs in aviation and that there are many more rewarding and descent paying flying jobs that don't involve a fist full of throttles or a shiney jet. Many folks have made a career of flying single engine and many of those jobs require much skill and pay quite well. BTW, flying a typical jet does not require the pinnacle of skill, as much of the general public thinks; however you do need to pay you dues to get there and be successfull at it...

Climbto450

This is some great advice. The FAA has a woody for professional flight programs being AABI accredited even if the DOE doesn't recognize it. I was recently at a symposium on this topic. The FAA wants there to be two pathways to available. The 1st for recreational pilots being your local flight schools, the second is the University (AABI accredited) programs for the professional pilots. The DOT data gathered from investigations prove that pilots that graduated from the university level programs have far less incident /accident/ violation/ failed check-ride issues in there career then pilots who attend Pilot Mills and local flight schools. Yes they cost more but data doesn't lie. Not trying to dis people who didn't go to those places but recent accident history data points this out.

USMCFLYR

Data absolutely CAN lie.
Statistics can be easily influenced by people with agendas.
I don't know these stats personally, but I'm sure that the high standardization of the largest academies and university flight programs pay some dividends down the road, but is the cost worth it without some other great benefit is a large question. maybe that extra cash will make more sense in today's environment IF the rules change and end up giving some credit to these programs towards ATPs.

rickair7777

I'm sure the data is manipulated to tell the specific lie which the university programs wish to tell.

I don't think the type of entry-level civilian flight training makes much difference either way. I think what comes before and after the flight training is more important.

BEFORE: What sort of people are you dealing with? Methodical, patient hard workers or shortcut takers? Comfortable in dynamic physical environments, or desk jockey types more adept at office politics? How are they screened for entry into aviation?

AFTER: Quality and amount of flight experience.

Local flight schools or even puppy mills do not provide inherently bad training but they may attract some folks who are not as ideally suited for aviation (lost souls, some career changers). Certain aviation university programs also seem to attract a particular type of privileged, entitled, and over-confident young person...

Climbto450

Actually the information was presented by the FAA and the NTSB there actually wasn't even a university representative at this symposium. The topics of the symposium was the looming pilot shortage and the NPRM of the upcoming Part 121 flight time requirements. I was strictly an observer. Data doesn't lie. Yes it can be manipulated but the stats they where presenting where basic airmanship; stall and upset recovery where 2 of the specific topics they where presented along with a couple other specifics that aren't coming to me right now. Take a look at recent regional level accidents and the NTSB points at basic airmanship then take a look at where those same pilots attended basic flight training, it isn't hard to see the association/ corolation between the two.
As to your second topic the FAA and airlines don't care about a sense of entitlement they care about training safe and efficient pilots they don't care where they come from or what entitlement they may or may not have. They care about pilots who adopt a culture of safety, not who is or isn't entitled to anything or work ethic or any other factor that would make someone a good employee.
The following is only my opinion- I have instructed and trained in both environments and there is no comparison between the two. One affords all the educational opportunities a new pilot could ever need and one doesn't, it is that simple. I agree with the FAA and the NTSB on this subject.

The Kodiak Kid

FYI - Sierra hasn't been out of OAK since 2004...

SuperTug

I was a graduate of the a University of North Dakota. After having obtained my private part 61, it was night and day how much better the training at the university level is. If your going into an airline it really does help not only with structured training, but other opertunities like internships.

I was just a the WIA conference and the recruiters all commented on where I obtained my degree.

With that said, can you do it the "cheap route", sure. I fly with plenty of guys/gals that did it that way. You have to do what works for you, and your pocket book.