I think it's not really about the exams, but about how history was taught. The subject matter is inherently interesting. These are the most interesting true stories that we have, and rather than being taught in an interesting way, with context and drama, they're mostly presented as a list of dry facts.

"Here's a list of facts. Let's test your rote memory. This is how we teach history. Try not to accidentally learn anything fun or useful."

Worst kind of history teaching. My mother said that was how they taught history in school when she was young, and I'm sure there are backward-ass school curriculums today still doing that. That probably would've killed my youthful enthusiasm for history. Luckily, my state's public schools gave a very modern, engaging form of history.

It's honestly contrary to the core idea of History as a discipline - a chronicle or a timeline isn't History. History is about making sense of the past.

I forget most countries' history lessons look like this. In the UK it was mostly analysing pictures and writing essays. So. many. essays.