O.k., now that thosee of us on CET are waking up, here are my two cents worth.
It doesn't matter what aircraft you use for flight training.
What matters is the quality of the instructor and the willingness to learn and commitment of the student.
The Super Cub is a brilliant aircraft which will do pretty well anything, but it is a long way from being an ideal trainer. The C172 is easy to fly, has a fairish load carrying capacity, and is pretty bland.
I learned to fly on a C150 because that is what was available. I had no problem converting to the Rollason Condor, then Chipmunk, then Cub. I think the longest conversion was to the Wilga, which took nearly two hours. That was probably because the instructor spoke no english and I speak no polish
The Cub has character. So does my 1975 MGB. The C172 is boring. Doesn't matter. Anyone can learn to fly it, but it still takes skill to fly it well. The instructor can see the student, can reach all the controls including the trimmer, flaps, and magnetos without contortions. It can live outside if it has to, it spins nicely when asked to, and is fast enough for a reasonable cross country. The cabin heat warms all the cabin, and doesn't just roast the pilot's right leg.
The Cub is fun. I go touring in it. I do eventually get there. I can just about fly it from the back seat, and if my legs were 10cm longer I could probably do so without too much back pain. I can only spin it solo, it has to live in a hangar. I can tow gliders with it, use it for taking photographs, fly out of muddy fields, fly backwards in any brisk wind, get airborne in thirty metres by flap jumping it. Tyres and brake spares cost significant money. The instrument panel is tiny. If you want to install navaids you need the expensive small instruments. I will know when I am too old to fly it because I won't be able to climb in. It has two seats. Not ideal for people wanting to go on a family holiday, but it has enough luggage space for the camping gear.
None of which is much use in 2014 in a training aircraft. Properly taught, the conversion either way shouldn't be a problem for any willing pilot. We ARE teaching fully held off landings in nosedraggers, aren't we? So we can teach three pointers by telling students to er, land fully held off. Now we just have to teach wheel landings and job done. The rest of the flight between takeoff and landing is the same whichever end has the little wheel. Tandem seating makes steep turns easier.
People who really want to learn to fly in a Cub will still do so. I couldn't afford to when I was a student pilot, the extra travelling cost would have killed that idea. I just wanted to fly, anything would do. But I had an excellent career instructor. I now have a Cub. Oh, and our club uses DR 400 Robins, which are nicer to fly than the C172 but have to live in a hangar. That's OK in France where the hangarage is cheap.
Fortunately for our students, they have a choice where and what they learn to fly. As instructors, our job is to teach them well in whatever is available, not to impose our preferences on them. The students need to co-operate by flying regularly, studying, and turning up on time.
My two cents worth ends here.