One of my colleagues uses multiple choice exams for his classes (online and in-person) but he gives them a ton of questions. Something like 90 for a 2hr test. His theory was that, sure, you could look up the answers to a few questions, but if you're doing that for every question you'll run out of time.

Maybe some STEM, maybe lower level courses. I went to a large school and there were maybe 14 people in most of my upper level classes for my degree.

Even so, I don't see what a scantron exam tells you about the quality of a professor and class.

Good point. I was also thinking that I never saw a scantron while studying CS at two different American R1 research universities, but the CS departments were small with at most 25 people in a classroom. Peeking at some other universities now, it looks like some required undergrad CS classes have 500-1,000 seats. That's crazy, and clearly demands a different approach.

True/False questions happened sometimes in my experience, but not in this quantity (20). I wouldn't say it's lazy. The questions can be clever and writing them, such that the answer isn't debatable and doesn't depend on a bunch of assumptions, is pretty hard.

Lazy and terrible is where you have multiple choice questions for which 3/4 of the answers are throwaway nonsense, or the answers are numerical values that are definitively correct or incorrect but are trivia rather than anything conceptual.

Enrolment at my uni is 70k. There is no real problem with long form questions on the test, even for first year classes. I was also a TA. You can have more correctors, and I'd assume a quantum computing class won't even have too many students.

It's safe to assume the enrollment of Prof. Aaronson's Quantum Computing course isn't 50k.

Well, if a uni with 5k enrolled can hand grade tests, then obviously UT Austin could, if they had 10x faculty of the first uni.