Well, porridge - I wouldn't go as far as calling it an inverse relationship. If you buy a (heavily branded) Audi A6, you get a much better car than if you buy a Mondeo. If you go to (heavily-branded) Oxford, you get much better training than at certain budget, US-based, JAA schools.
But the point is this: Those who do NOT research schools wisely and carefully may be led to believe that by paying a HUGE premium at OAT their chances are MUCH better to get a first job. For the majority of APP cadets, I would doubt whether that's the case. Do they get good value? As far as I'm aware, Oxford does not publish how many APP cadets *don't* get an FO position upon completing the programme - only how many *do*.
This is not to discredit the quality of the school. I spent much time there myself, and Oxford is an excellent FTO.
But for those apsiring pilots not in the know, how can they make their training decision wisely and without bias? By reading mags that clearly favour Oxford - for the obvious reason of massive advertising expenditure? Or by speaking to a "career advisor" from that school? By trusting ads with big jets and in them or a glossy "skills directory"?
As Moo said - you have to go there, speak to staff and students, check the facilities and airplanes. If you think the school is worth its money and right for you, by all means enroll. But those things alone should be the factors on which to base a decision. And do not let yourself be biased by the type of marketing that only Oxford can afford. This stuff costs money which isn't going towards your training.
KK