Firstly I think we should applaud the immense efforts that those under financial an s emotional hardship make to achieve academic grades.
I think all of us as humans have sympathy for those under plight as described in the foundation course description and many of us would want to see action about the social conditions that bring about these.
However the foundation course description appears to imply that you are eligible for acceptance with 3B s and with passing a new certificate whose academic merit is unverifiable (though I am sure it is very good?) brings up disadvantaged pupils to a standard to embark on an Cambridge degree.
I do not know how easy or difficult it will be to pass such a certificate. How is the certificate to be assessed, who is going to supply the teaching (university staff ?) or the degree to which the course attendees are to be part of the full university body. If the certificate is essentially a rubber stamp of attendance does this have implications for the academic rigour off a Cambridge degree?
I wouof question SouthLondonMommy's assertion of immense talent when 3 Vs is the entrance requirement . Again it is granted the children in question have suffered and have displayed huge resilience but the acquisition of 3B s at A level in some eyes would not be commensurate with that level of talent.
I can see how the scheme fits into general rebalancing but I would say it may be hard to argue that this is not form of positive discrimination.
I would say a scheme like this may be appropriate for other Russell group universities where competition isn't quite as fierce or contentious and they may provide academic environments that hairbrush candidates better. You could also argue that the support in these instance should be directed at schools where the pupil could repeat a year with possibly tutoring to give an opportunity to get the A grades that are normally associated with Cambridge entrance.
I think rebalancing and increasing diversity is relatively easy to support openly be perhaps that there are those that feel duty bound to do so. However there are middle class parents whose children have devoted huge effort (perhaps in private schools) that have to console their child on Cambridge offer day when the rejection letter some through and they know the hard work in one perspective has come to naught.those
From an Eton parent 's perspective they would say that they have paid the state possibly a considerable amount of taxation to support the disadvantaged, allowed the state not to pay schools fees, allowed Eton to use fees to support bursaries for disadvantaged boys so why should they ecstatic when there are schemes in place to potentially displace their child's Cambridge place? Private school parents are not ogres and many may actually left leaning sympathies and (whisper it) be compassionate socially aware human beings. However you can see the sense of grievance such schemes cause.
When you have just a few coveted places at the world leading universities whose prime responsibility is to accept the very talented is it sensible to provide such schemes. Are there not better ways of doing this that don't add fuel to the fire of positive bias?
There is already thought that universities in general are left leaning in their political culture which may be at odds to country as a whole (very centre right) and ambitions such as foundation schemes may add to those suspisions.
With the fact that you have international Cambridge entrants from socio economic backgrounds (including schooling) that isn't scrutinised (and why as they pay such large fees) combined with a local UK diversity agenda you can see why there may be an element of cynicism from such quarters.
Part of the reason for the flight of elite public school students to the US?