Correct, the statements ....
"I doubt very much whether OAT is value for money" and also "OAT is a GOOD school" are correct. An expensive restaurant in some upmarket location has great food but ultimately bad value for money. The same may apply to OAT in terms of this sense of 'value' which is irrespective of training standard. However what many interpret from higher cost is the level of training standards and when they mismatch that's simply seen as bad value for money. OAT bring numerous problems upon themselves because of the way they interface each and every aspect of the training community which equates to a somewhat tarnished reputation of their own making.
By the way integrated is in the ideal world the best way forward but upon application of those same realities it can also be seen as an expensive route. At times that option lacks justification especially when the graduate cannot find employment or are unable to keep their flying skills up to speed and all that 'integrated' training begins to rust. Fine for some but not necessarily the most optimum option for many others.
Last edited by boogie-nicey; 30th May 2006 at 16:26.