Beau Joker,
Two points about these 'new' vs the traditional 'cadetships:'
1/ Traditionally the trainee would often be put into a second officer role which offers a different learning curve than straight into first officer on short sector domestic operations.
2/ Financial cost structure. Cost burden used to lie with the employer not with the employee. This usually results in a higher quality of training and quality of candidate also.
If you keep doing your history research you will find that not all young pilots doing their best for their country under extreme circumstances had good outcomes. Many lives were lost and to suggest that a wartime system which did have an 'attrition' rate is acceptable in a modern airline world is absurd. It is not a valid comparison.
There would be a lot less backlash about this system if it could be proven it is actually 'needed' on a supply/demand basis and if it wasn't so apparent that it is a tool for making money at the cost of the cockpit crew and potential overall safety. Accountants do not have a formula for attributing value to experience and therefore a fresh cadet and an experienced pilot both checked to line are exactly the same to those running the numbers.