Our national specialty (and sometimes regionals) offer written critiques that are published in our breed club magazine. There isn't a critique for every single dog (as our national usually garners over 300 entries) but the critiques published offer positive and negatives on each dog placed.
I used to judge 4H juniors and had to write a critique for EVERY SINGLE child. One year I judged about 80 kids, so the judging took forever as I had to take notes after going over every individual. If I waited til the class was over, I would have forgotten who did what. I think judging 80 kids took nearly 5 hours with all the writing and notes and critiquing, which is time well wasted in my opinion.
Your average junior judge (akc or 4H) will probably be able to offer some criticism after the class is judged if the kid really wants to know. So if the info is available, why write it down?
In the individual breeds at some shows the entry is so large that if the judge had to take notes and write critiques, judging would go way past midnight. Plus I think AKC prides itself on the timely judging. You get your program in the mail and you can pretty much figure out the exact moment you'll be walking into the ring. If the judge got bogged down with writing, people who show multiple dogs would be stuck in rings or stuck ringside waiting for the judge and be late for their other judgings. I don't think that is very fair. There are enough AKC shows and judges to where if you don't place under one judge, you know not to show to him/her again. A piece of paper with the judges evaluation of how much he hated your dog is a bit superfluous to that fact.
The shows that offer written critiques usually have teeny tiny entries. . like the international shows in CA usually only attract about 100 people. . .the size of a match. If you want the critique, you can enter these shows. I don't think the AKC has much use for critiquing.