[honour's degrees in 2 years]

The front page of The Times decrees: "Degrees in two years to ease student debt burden." So, now that British students have to pay for their undergraduate degrees, they're incurring higher debt. Ummm. What about in Canada (and the States) where we've always had to pay our undergrad. fees and our honour's degrees are FOUR years long? I think it's a good idea to have the option of "compressing" the undergrad. degree (cutting out the summer breaks) but is it really worth it? I raise my eyebrows when I hear (like on bbc radio 4) that it is a disadvantage to have a degree because employers don't want to pay employees extra for education. I myself was told to take my master's degree off my CV because "no one will employ you" - and that was in London. Will young people really be willing to get themselves into debt (whether 2 years or 3) if there isn't a distinct possibility that they will be hired because of their degree? The Times explains that by 2012 HALF of new (what about the old ones?) British jobs will require a graduate qualification...what about the other half of new jobs or the old jobs?

Interesting facts from the 2001 Statistics Canada Census (they're working on 2006 now):

The main variation between the provinces, with respect to universities, is the amount of funding they receive. Universities in Quebec receive the most funding and have the lowest tuitions. Universities in Atlantic Canada generally receive the least funding and some, like Acadia University, are almost wholly reliant on private funding. When Ontario had five years of high school, a three-year bachelor's degree was common, but these degrees are being phased out in favour of the four-year degree.

Now, look at these images, compare the percentage of Canadians employed with a degree and the percentage of British with a degree....why the difference? The first two illustrate Canadian census stats while the bottom image shows the U.K. info: (click on images to see a larger more legible version)