It was always the case that the better students will find employment.
They are capable, and pass the sim rides.
The weaker ones will not succeed irrespective how much money they spend.
Whilst I agree parkfell that better students may have more success finding work, it is my experience that in recent years, consistently underperforming students with the capacity to pay for type and line training do find jobs predominantly on B737's in the UK and EU. Whereas I do subscribe to the idea that weak students may improve with practice and experience, I could offer you two large low-cost airlines who employ (albeit as contractors) pilots who were unsuccessful in both the first series and second series of the CPL and IR Skill Tests and who struggled through MCC in a way that I can only describe as unethical. It is my view that such weakness and ineptitude would never have been deemed acceptable to even the lowest of training establishments in the past. Any wonder that EASA is pushing to lose the 'Safety' part of it's title?