Sorry If It Reposts
There has obviously been some misunderstanding. First and foremost, I will be one of the first to admit that there are numerous "substandard" low time pilots. Substandard in the sense that they do not represent what the rank and file members of their industry would consider a minimum acceptable level of competency. However, it would also be true that there exist a number of substandard, traditionally trained pilots as well. The above statements cannot be argued, every one of us has an example of both. Furthermore, I never claimed that formal flight school training was "better" than the more traditional method. My exact words were "more effectively and efficiently". Put into context, you can train a pilot to the minimum acceptable level of competency mentioned above without thousands of hours of trial-and-error time building training. Now, I beg you...please do not quote my previous sentence without understanding that the minimum acceptable level of competency constitutes what everyone would consider a "good" pilot.
Don't get so defensive towards low time, "PIC"less pilots. Their training is just the result of distilling uneventful flight from thousands of hours more traditionally trained pilots have spent during their aviation careers.. Now, I understand that you can learn something from even uneventful flight, and this is where the "Effective and efficient" part comes in. From the boiled down flight training of past, people have begun to recognize patterns that all good pilots operate by. The schools simply create programs that teach the processes that the most successful pilots have developed in their plethora of "oh sh!t moments". This algorithm for effect pilot "decision making, leadership or followership, etc", although not a replacement for hours and hours of experience, has an exceptional ability to replicate the same results, a pilot with the minimum acceptable level of competency.