It is now less than six months until the higher education sector enters a new regime of top-up fees and a fledgling mixed economy of funding. A system with more market influences than in the past should be open to experimentation. There is, for instance, no compelling reason why a university degree course should be of three years’ duration. A few of them are already longer than that. It would not be an outrage if some of them were shorter.

Which, if Bill Rammell, the Minister for Higher Education, can persuade institutions to embrace his initiative, will indeed happen. Mr Rammell, as we report today, is keen to stimulate a more diverse range of provision. He is not convinced that a so-called “three-year” degree course, which often involves much less than two years of actual timetabled studying, is right for everybody. Some might prefer a more intensive two-year experience that involves the same amount of tuition time, yet with much shorter holidays. Others might want to complete part of their education in the workplace.

The incentives for real innovation should be stronger as students start contributing more to the cost of their education. Those who are perturbed at the prospect of debt may find that reducing their outlays by undertaking a course in two years, not three, is an interesting idea. Nor are there credible grounds for assuming that a “compressed” higher education of this type is less valuable or worthwhile than the current formula. The private University of Buckingham has provided two-year courses for a long time. There is no evidence of employers disregarding their students as a consequence.

What matters is the quality of the degree to be taken and not the length of time before a graduation ceremony. If the Rammell plan were to result in an explosion of more, to put it kindly, novel degrees, such as the Sociology of Football or Media Studies with Feng Shui, then the benefit to Britain could be modest. Were it, on the other hand, to inspire able individuals who would not have otherwise considered higher education to choose to take on academically robust or highly vocational studies, then it would be welcome.

It is the more practical aspect that should interest ministers particularly. One of the tragedies of higher education over the past two decades is that the sort of diplomas offered by polytechnics too often disappeared when they were allowed to transform themselves into “new” universities. Many of the courses that have been introduced since might be popular and populist, but they lack the specific skills that were often taught in the old system.

A shorter and sharper degree course alongside an expansion of the role of further education colleges can revive this tradition. The early pilots of this programme held at Staffordshire University would appear to be encouraging. Others should be prepared to follow this example. Students are soon to be more akin to customers than older pupils and entitled to a meaningful choice between different forms of courses. Not all will want to complete a degree in two years. Many, however, may care for the option.