People always consider universities like Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial College etc. among the best universities on the planet, with centuries of experience in research methodology. One would assert that their policies to conduct 1-year master programs (versus their 2-year counterparts at rest of the world, specially north america) sounds a little odd and vague.
This article has tried to address some Pros and Cons. Seemingly, "Shortness" of the program might not be a true advantage, where the depth of the education might be endangered. Moreover, the students might not be, deservedly, flourished by the target program, because it will be supposed to be finished, when the students have just focused on the case, primarily, without acquisition of the all of the desired educational and research profundity. On the other hand, the investment does not sound to be a considerable factor to justify this policy, because most of the students (and their parents) realize that paying for graduate studies will construct their future and the investment on this case will, fairly, be compensated with the upcoming achievements, such as successful recruitment and so on.
So, I, personally, can not understand the real underlying logic behind taking such decision into account by UK universities. It is undeniable that a multitude of international students would not discern these short programs as efficient steps to build a robust future for them in either further academic progressions or professional job sector.
Why don't UK universities manage their master programs in 2-year periods, instead of current short 1-year ones?
What motivations could convince a typical international student to prefer a 1-year master program at UK to a 2-year one at north america?
PS. There is a, typically, similar question within the community, has which not asserted on the intrinsic facts, under the aegis of this policy. It's content, globally, demonstrates more reasons to revoke the credibility of the case.