That's not my experience as a French student in the early 2010s. At the very least, I remember that the only process creation model I saw in class was fork()+exec() and there were no disclaimers about it.
I think it makes more sense when you consider that fork was originally the concurrency primitive in Unix. Threads came later. If you want to make some concurrent program, it makes sense to fork without exec. The fact that you can spawn an entirely distinct process with the fork+exec pattern is kind of a coincidence.
I guess spawn-like or invoke-like things are a bit more intuitive at first but they break down when you're out of the trivial case and you have to clean up some but not all resources in a certain way and keep some others to pass on before calling the actual child code.
Then fork starts to make sense as you can do the preparation phase unrestricted by what the spawn API allows and be sure to affect only the child before exec'ing. Probably changing this would require a significantly different resource management model (which is a nice thing to explore)
In some ways, fork+exec sucks, but in others it's also exactly the right tool for some jobs. There's some conceptual simplicity and beauty to it that reminds me of lisp's homoiconicity, where things can be broken down to four fundamental elements (read eval print loop)
My OS class definitely didn't characterize fork() as maligned, just as a powerful building block (which it is). It took me professional experience to realize it sucks.
Who is saying this? fork() is widely maligned.