Seriously what is the point of this entire thread? It's really very simple to answer OAT or CTC...
Any wannabe without access to personal funds of £60,000+ would be pretty moronic to not first attempt gaining sponsorship (CTC). OAT IS NOT SPONSORSHIP.
Therefore, to me anyway, this entire thread has been 'self-sponsored versus sponsored'. Whatever route taken the wannabe always, and has always, eventually paid for/paid back their training, but the difference in job opportunities between sponsored and self-sponsored is only a dictionary read away.
To suggest OAT cadets are CTC rejects is the kind of elitest banter I'd expect to find between a couple of arrogant ivy league yanks arguing between Harvard and Yale because I don't think it should be forgotten just how prestigious both routes are. As for the quality of schooling who cares--any evidence other than employment statistics is anecdotal and should be saved for people who have an alternative deciding priority to employment prospects.
My proof of the hierarchy lies with HSBC's professional studies loan. For a long time this has been how quite a few wannabes have, at least partially, funded their training. However this has recently been taken away but for only two routes--OAT and CTC.
I detest banks but do have faith in their research when it comes to ensuring their profit. HSBC lend up to £50,000 on secured terms for those wishing to go to OAT and demand a viable business plan. However, with CTC they lend £60,000 unsecured and require no business plan. I think they'll have done more research than anyone on this thread when it comes to ensuring there'll be a job at the end to ensure monthly repayments. This is certainly not to say OAT doesn't ensure good job prospects--rememer this is the ONLY self-sponsored route the bank will lend for.
The only reasons I could ever see not to apply to CTC before OAT first is location of training or a desire to go into the air taxi side of aviation, piloting on smaller planes.
Frankly I wish the originator of this thread had read more on both routes before posting his question. He's either adorably naive, a lazy researcher, or a complete ****stirrer.