If someone has just got his diploma, usually his resume will contain very few actual work experience in his field. Most student jobs are not in your field of work, so they are barely relevant to a resume. The only purpose of putting them there is to show you do work, not to show off any relevant skills (except interpersonal skills or generic skills like being reliable).
So when you leave university to look for your full-time job, your education on your resume is significant.
How significant is the time you needed to complete your studies?
For example, if you studied in a program that usually takes 6 semesters (3 years), and you failed a few classes, you might have taken 4 years instead of 3. If you were working part-time during school, you might have done fewer classes per semester, and thus needed 4 or 5 years to complete it.
On the other hand, if you took extra classes and summer classes, and ended up doing it in only 2 years, this is also a big difference.
I always put the dates (just the years) of everything I did on my resume. If I add the dates I was in university, will it be a red flag to have done it faster or slower than expected?
I could imagine en employer being cautious of someone who needed 2 extra years to get his diploma, but I could also imagine an employer seeing this as proof that this person doesn't give up or something. The same goes for shorter duration, I could see it going both ways.
So how significant is the duration on your resume, and specifically is shorter always good or bad? What about longer? Should you leave out the dates completely in some cases to avoid hurting your case?