Aarhus University BSS - what do grades reflect?

I recently graduated from Aarhus University BSS (Denmark) with a bachelor's degree.
In retrospect there are numerous grades, teaching methods, grading methods, exams, classes, assignments that baffle me. What I find most questionable is the connection between the above.
The business department (BSS) is considered to be a good school, though it has fallen a bit in ratings since becoming part of the standard university. Any who, it makes sense for a good university to be tough with the grades when the level is high. Does it also justify poor teaching?

Let me first explain how Aarhus University BSS works (this is a generalization based on the Business Administration programme).
Almost every class consists of lectures and tutorials with exercises.
Although there are many exercises and occasionally presentations and assignments, they are all voluntary and do not take part in the final grade. It is only the final exam that matters in the end.
There is no doubt that there are both good and bad aspects of whatever teaching method you encounter. However, in this case a few things ought to be questioned.

First of all there is the attitude towards higher education in Denmark. The main idea is that the learning outcome is the responsibility of the student and the student alone. This also means that students can choose to not study all year-long but instead study right before the exam. It is therefore reflected in the "you-have-one-chance-method" (the final exam).
A characteristic of the programmes taught at BSS is that they all have relatively many classes, lectures and assignments. Ergo they're using significant resources teaching the students that choose to show up. Naturally there is nothing wrong with using resources on ambitious students. Though, did anyone every consider whether students choose to study on their own as a result of the quality of the teaching during the year? The content of the classes bring me to the second part.

Secondly, the classes, assignments and lectures are not necessarily directly preparing the students for the exam. Some exams, especially in excel, are highly standardized and similar each year. Still, the curriculum throughout the year is often more broad, more simple or taught from another angle. This means that even if you keep up all year, you still have to study specifically for the final exam by going through previous exams.
My point is, don't the preparations during the year appear redundant if they are not mandatory, not directly preparing and not counting in any way in the final score?
Or is the reason why no assignments, presentations or midway tests count really that they do not represent the course? Redundant, right?

Third of all, this arrangement is not necessarily fair when it comes to evaluating the students in the end. Since all the effort during the year does not count in any way, it is actually possible to learn a substantial amount but still fail the exam. This is possible because of a slightly different content and type of exercises. Ergo, learning the curriculum and learning to pass the exam is not the same thing. One could argue that the more knowledge the better. However, since the students only end up with one grade for passing the final exam, they have no legitimate proof of knowing anything else (or better performance)!
Example: the elective course "UK Society"
This course consists of tutorials and lectures. This means that there are small exercises to prepare and even presentations. The class goes through different aspects of the UK and the final exam consists of writing a paper about a specific topic and occasionally defending it orally. You can easily go through several aspects of the UK during the year and then write a final paper about yet another aspect. This means that going to class doesn't prepare you for the exam. Yes, surely there will be a learning outcome, but you cannot prove it. Because basically, you can do killer presentations during the year, but write a bad paper at last (or defend it poorly) and end up with a poor grade IRREGARDLESS of your performance during the year.
... Fairness?

For some students this system is fine. Though, I am having a hard time focusing on the upside.
When classes ≠ exams it is highly demotivating to show up for class when you don't get any credit out of it. You can read the entire book and fail the exam or choose to not read the book and only study for the exam and hereby pass. What does that say about the exam? About the classes? And most importantly, what does that say about the grades that the students end up with? Do they represent skill, effort and knowledge?

I ask?