You're asking for ~2000 minutes to examine a class of 100. That means either having many more TAs than most classes have or making examination periods way longer than they are.
Then, even with all that you aren't really making any real improvement, as the skills involved in an oral exam are not necessarily relevant to those which need to be tested, thus making the exam at best similar in uselessness to a written exam and at worst, actively harmful in testing performance.
So 33 hours of work, or a bit less than a week by one person then?
Why is this thread full of academics claiming that apparently normal workloads of the sort everyone takes on, or trivial solutions of the sort high school teachers manage, is somehow impossible for them? They do realize they're accepting money in return for a commitment to do teaching activities, right?
An entire week of nothing but oral presentations, and you really can't see how that's completely unrealistic? Do you think the only things professors (or students for that matter) have to do is go to lectures and listen to oral exams?
Are you saying their research is of such vital urgency that a one week delay would matter?
Look, there are constituencies that matter here other than academics. There are the students who have a reasonable expectation that their grade means something and isn't corrupted by other students cheating. And the rest of the world has a reasonable expectation that academics do a good job of teaching and assessment. The vast majority of people care far more about this aspect than the research aspect, so the fact that academics seem to be giving up on teaching and assessment is going to result in a world of richly deserved pain for universities one day.
They aren't just doing research, they have several classes to manage, often PhDs and graduate students to supervise, and exams happen 2-3 times in a typical semester of 15 weeks. Add on that as exam periods approach, professors also tend to get pretty busy in office hours with students who need help. Combine that with the student's own situation of having 4-5 classes to deal with.
Sure, students have a reasonable expectation of having their grade mean something, but it's obvious that oral exams are not the solution. It's also kind of hilarious that in this thread, about a professor falsely accusing an entire class of cheating, you seem to imply that there is enough cheating going on for grades to be meaningless.
> An entire week of nothing but oral presentations, and you really can't see how that's completely unrealistic?
That class of 100 has likely paid the university over $1 million in tuition, even if they're all in-state students. Assuming they take 12 courses, we've got $83k per course coming in.
Assuming each TA is paid a generous $20 per hour, that's $800 for a 40-hour week.
I'm no professor, but I'm pretty sure $800 is less than $83,000. I know universities have a lot of overheads, but surely 1% of the tuition money could be spent on tuition?
Then, even with all that you aren't really making any real improvement, as the skills involved in an oral exam are not necessarily relevant to those which need to be tested, thus making the exam at best similar in uselessness to a written exam and at worst, actively harmful in testing performance.