Guys I'm not trying to get in a pissing contest and saying my way is the best. It's up to the individual which way they want to go.

Gregg wrote: [TO: Vermil]
In order to make a claim like that you would have to have the training departments at all the facilities chime in on that--which I know has not happened. I have been doing this job for over 30 years, ATC is talent--the gifted ones have the talent and will excel at any facility with or without any prior training or schooling. This would equate to about 20% of the workforce. Then you have about 60% of the work force who can be trained to do a competent but not exceptional job. The remaining 20% do not posses the talent or skill levels to master ATC. The only thing a CTI school does is give the student a foundation of knowledge, and in a few cases allows them to work a few airplanes. This will in no way help them in training at a moderate FAA facility--other than to give them some confidence on the radio. If your line of thinking (and I'm curious as to your level of experience) is correct--then those getting out of the military should far exceed any other category of trainee's--because they worked more difficult traffic, and at much busier airports. But in reality that does not always play out--in the end its going to amount to how much talent a certain individual possesses to do this job. My personal opinion is the CTI's schools were a huge waste of money, they didn't turn out a better product, and in most cases the quality of instruction was sub-par. If you hire former military controllers with no civilian ATC experience to train new FAA employee's (which accounts for well over half the instructor slots at these schools) your going to get a trainee that is worse off than one off the street who can be molded and taught the FAA way--not the CTI's school's interpretation of the FAA way. This entire argument is a waste of time--there is no factual way to arrive at a correct answer.

Gregg