Plus, if it's even easier to get PhDs, we'll just end up with even more people having PhDs and the status associated with the PhD will be even lower. PhDs are becoming relatively commonplace, and the vast majority of them are not in academia because either there's no space for them, or they're simply not good enough.
Meeting someone with a PhD is no longer surprising. It's not "wow, you must be a renowned researcher" anymore, it's "wow, you were able to do lots of grueling work for 30k a year, and now you're in industry doing what everyone else is doing".
https://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/degreesoffered...
I've heard that universities across the pond have different tracks for grad students, so that might be responsible for the discrepancy.
Consequently, UK PhDs are often quite a bit more junior than US PhDs -- although it works brilliantly if you're an academic high-flier, as you show up and start doing research on day one, leaving with a doctorate three years later.
The only real difference between the British system and that in mainland Europe is that you will find it difficult to impossible to get onto a doctoral programme without a Master’s. You’ll still be expected to finish within at absolute most four years and to start researching from the word go.
As far as different tracks for graduate students go, same as in the US. North Florida State and Harvard both award doctorates, ditto for Anglia Ruskin and Cambridge.
> mainland Europe is that you will find it difficult to impossible to get onto a doctoral programme without a Master’s
Not true in the US at all. It is very rare for a student to finish in 3-4 years here in the US unless they are absolutely stellar.
That said, I still think they have room in making it a shorter length PhD. Not 3 years, but there are several groups where less than 6 years is rare, but 6-7 is normal.