for the most part ATPL/SCPL exams were just an academic exercise
I think we are speaking at cross purposes. I take quite a different point of view - the theory exams are there to test the candidate's ability to demonstrate a knowledge level. So far as any academic level might be concerned, the difficulty of the material was (and still is) reasonably straightforward across the exam set. Getting the exam pass, on the other hand, is in the hard yards realm for most folks due to the rigid pass mark and an often critical time limit for most. Whether one might think the exams are a waste of time or not is moot as they are not likely to disappear into the night air any time soon.
as Centaurus mentions they were set by a chap from a bygone era who wouldn't or couldn't let go.
I did my exams just after Ted's time in the chair. Over the years we have had a considerable number of folks administer the exams, some good, some not so good. Overall, though, for those who put in the effort, the pass came. If I hark back to the 70s/80s I was reasonably heavily involved in theory training and I can recall (with great fondness) several chaps who were not brilliant students by any stretch of the imagination. However, their application and hard work was laudable and the various passes came their way progressively. The examiner, really, is not critical to gaining the pass - the exams have been somewhat similar over the years. Having recently returned to theory training work, although the subjects have changed somewhat, the general style and difficulty of question hasn't to any significant extent. Same, same .. put in the hard yards and the pass is there for the taking.
what the poms call performance A and many other topics to the same academic level.
Having a performance engineering background, I am quite familiar with Perf A. The Australian syllabus has always presumed that the stuff be covered albeit that the exams have never, to any significant extent, addressed the certification work and its application to airline performance scheduling. While there is no reason why a pilot can't acquire a very sound level of knowledge in the work (Centaurus, whom I have known very well for many, many years is a case in point) the reality is that the airlines have (or should have access to) appropriate engineering folk who can do the work on behalf of the pilot folks.
they had to study pressurisation and 767 systems for a ATPL(H)
I can only agree with your thoughts there, good sir. DRW still to your liking, one trusts ?