I recall a conversation with a TKI from one of the big ATO's a couple of years ago where he told me that a number of high-performing graduates were recommended to a prospective employer on the request of the airline but were almost all rejected. He said there was surprise to discover that quite a few modular, and some the school had considered underperforming during training, were in fact taken on by this operator and made it through 737 type rating without issues. He felt that perhaps the successful candidates, those not recommended by the school, were perhaps more compliant and therefore a better fit for this particular employer at the time, which says quite a lot.
I reiterate what has already been said about modular vs integrated revolving around an ability to pay but also the individual - Cadet764 confirms through reference to the lack of maturity and I have heard of the frustration from instructors lately at the lack of motivation demonstrated by a number of similar sounding students; discipline, motivation and integrity are necessary for modular training if you are serious about securing a job at the end, but for integrated it seems that there is still an attitude among some that because they have paid for training, it should be delivered with minimum effort on the part of the student.
Interested to hear more about the flying instructors being 'a bit hit and miss but good at what they do'... And to the OP, a gentle recommendation before you go much further to perhaps refresh your memory in terms of homophones - e.g. the use of 'there', 'they're', 'their' etc. A reasonable level of grammar and spelling are fairly basic expectations of prospective airline pilots and may be used as a filter for future selection.
Last edited by Reverserbucket; 11th Sep 2019 at 10:26.