Dear Purplehearts,
You seem to give the impression that self-funded pilots are not as good as airline-sponsored cadets. Whether self-funded or not, candidates still have to pass assessments and interviews. I don't think the depth of their parents pockets is an assessment criteria.
I've trained both airline-sponsored and self-sponsored cadets. There are good ones and crap ones on both side. So I'll have to disagree that self-sponsored cadets are not so bright. There are those in my classroom now who managed to get massive loans and burn all their savings just to fulfill their flying dream. And I dare say they are some of the brightest. There are some that managed to get airline sponsorship simply because their dads are captains in the same airlines, and they absolutely can't give a toss about their training simply because of strong connections.
"How smart do you have to be to be a pilot?" I think it's rather unfair to compare the profession with surgeons and bankers because their skill sets are fundamentally different. I've seen bankers who applied for cadetship being terminated because they can't fly. Similarly some pilots made crappy investment decisions.
If you talk about accident, the crew of SQ6 were airline-sponsored, and were some of the brightest in the company when it happened. And yet it still happened. The captain involved in the 77W drifting in MUC was airline-sponsored. He's a Training Captain on the 777. And yet it happened. So it can happen to anyone, bright or not.
What is important when it comes to flying is having the right attitude. Whether they're born rich or poor is irrelevant.