Short version: the alternative-route new teachers are much more likely than their traditionally-trained colleagues to report administrative interference and to report that they were assigned hard-to-teach classes, and less likely to report helpful feedback from colleagues. The report doesn't answer the followup question,
whether the contrast comes out of differences in the
reception, training and support these alternate-route
teachers receive on the job or whether they stem from
different standards these new teachers (many
of whom come out of selective colleges and universities
or have served in the military) may bring to the job.
IOW, do they have higher standards, or are they soreheads?