Umm..................interesting question.
First the ground exams. The FAA exams covered everything that I'm likely to use in the type of flying that I do. In addition they were relatively easy to study for, and the examinations themselves could be done when I wanted to do them.
On the other hand I've seen the JAR syllabus (we've got a guy in work doing his ATPL's at the moment) and there is so much crap in there you'd never use flying around Europe to make it ridiculous.
Coupled with this I have a proper day job, with only a limited amount of leave I can take - I'm not wasting that doing residential courses followed by traditional grammar school type exams at a time and place dictated by somebody sat in an office at the Belgrano. It's just not possible in my position. I work with other people who also have a leave entitlement. We're not that flush with staff (What do you think this is - NATS
)
As for the Flying:
In the day job I see a lot of CAAFU initial IR tests, which all follow the same set piece 'script' as it were. It's the same - day in, day out - I know what's going to happen from the minute the aircraft gets pre-noted. No doubt the candidate does too.
As an FAA IR holder I can only relate my own experience, which was the examiner testing me and then pushing that little bit further - a learning experience in itself. When he found I was competent in something he moved on to something else. I never knew what was coming next. Coupled with the Oral (2 hours) the flight test (2.5 hours) was probably amongst the most demanding but enjoyable flying I've ever done.
Hopefully the above cover the 'impartial observer' bit too