Because oral exams don’t scale to the number of students in undergraduate programs given the number of faculty/ the resources faculty are given for teaching. This is why oral exams are mostly done as part of graduate education (or undergraduate honors theses), and then only as part of qualifying exams and thesis/dissertation defenses. By and large, regular classes taught in graduate do not use oral exams.
I think the underlying issue that no one wants to admit is that probably “too many” people go to university and/or there are “too few” professors to teach them. Modern higher ed has contributed to this problem on probably both the supply side (too few professors, especially tenured professors) and the supply side (advertising prestige, infecting politicians with the notion that a 4 year degree should be a primary goal for all).
Ironically, due to how graduate education has been distorted by underfunding of researchers (not providing stable and adequately paid research assistant/scientist positions), we have over-produced PhDs in many fields, given the shrinking number well-paying of faculty jobs universities are willing to fund.
For me it’s hard to conclude other than this is due to neoliberal/capitalist/corporatist ideology that has poisoned Western societies over the last 50 years.
All of my exams were in-person but they weren't oral. Written exams scale. They aren't used as much as they could be because too many students would fail.
I think the underlying issue that no one wants to admit is that probably “too many” people go to university
That’s not something the author, Caplan, is afraid to admit. He wrote a whole book arguing that [1]. He also happens to be a libertarian and staunch capitalist economist.
His argument (in his book) is that most university degrees (apart from engineering and other hard-core technical programs) are worthless. That everyone knows it but that it’s taboo to admit it. That what people are actually getting a degree for is to signal a level of basic intelligence and diligence/conscientiousness to prospective employers. He calls this the signalling hypothesis. He contrasts this with the human capital hypothesis: a belief that people actually go to university to learn and improve themselves. It’s a fascinating argument he presents!
I think the underlying issue that no one wants to admit is that probably “too many” people go to university and/or there are “too few” professors to teach them. Modern higher ed has contributed to this problem on probably both the supply side (too few professors, especially tenured professors) and the supply side (advertising prestige, infecting politicians with the notion that a 4 year degree should be a primary goal for all).
Ironically, due to how graduate education has been distorted by underfunding of researchers (not providing stable and adequately paid research assistant/scientist positions), we have over-produced PhDs in many fields, given the shrinking number well-paying of faculty jobs universities are willing to fund.
For me it’s hard to conclude other than this is due to neoliberal/capitalist/corporatist ideology that has poisoned Western societies over the last 50 years.