I wonder how many of you "in my day" folk would actually pass the current ATPL exams with a high score?
I have. UK CAA BCPL/CPL/ATPL, (when you had to do three sets of professional exams as experience grew - and with negative marking) JAA and now EASA ATPL subjects due to prolonged periods operating outside of the EU. Have to say, I found the whole process a lot easier and although there has been a significant increase in the volume of questions concerning topics such as GNSS, EFIS, RNAV etc, with a background in using these technologies over 25 years, it's not a problem.
Most significant difference for me was the use of electronic tests and mock exams; never had this tool for any of the previous exams I'd taken and it streamlined (turned on it's head in fact) the learning process in my view. I can see now why the fundamental knowledge of many entry-level F/O's is so weak - you simply don't need to know much to pass the exams with the benefit of pretty accurate question banks (although it really helps in most cases in terms of picking out the right option).
Despite the anecdotal evidence that appears to support the opposite, airline training departments really do identify a correlation between successful theoretical knowledge attempts in much the same way as first series passes in CPL and IR Skill Tests act as an indicator of future success or potential training risk. I'd say that based on experience of the current system, admitting that someone had failed multiple exams in a series would be nothing to be proud of and I can well see why a change is necessary after all, we're not talking about driving a Toyota Prius with a couple of punters in the back but managing and for short periods of time, actually flying a heavy, complex piece of high performance machinery at speeds not far shy of the supersonic envelope with tens to potentially hundreds of passengers. It's not rocket science but airline flying is still (just) an occupation that demands some skill, attention and professionalism.