These systems exist in no small part to train that ability, which is crucial to making it in the upper reaches of business and politics. The approach is probably also good for teaching the material, but training in speaking and arguing is more than just a side-effect of it—it’s part of the point.

Lots of elite prep schools in the US use a similar system, for similar reasons.

I'm not going to sugar coat it and it may sound harsh, but I doubt this is ever truly an issue outside of the minute edge cases.

Yes, there are people who have trouble with public speaking to a debilitating degree, but it would be excessively rare for someone to not at the very least in a one on one with their professor/teacher be able to be so badly affected as to not seem they've even heard of a topic or at least be able to prove they've worked on it to a certain degree.

I would be immediately skeptical of any student who claims they are completely unable to explain their knowledge unless they are allowed to work in complete isolation with nobody to monitor they aren't cheating in some way.

This is the kind of opinion that should be common sense but is highly controversial in the modern educational climate, for whatever reason. Probably the whole, "You can't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree" quote being misapplied constantly.

(not the CP, but went to a university with a tutorial-style system)

I think the hard answer is that to some extent you just have to learn to. I mean, you could sit silently in supervisions if you really insisted, but to participate properly you just needed to build the confidence.

Is it fun? No, but it's a pretty accurate reflection of life after school: nobody in the real world gives you points for "couldn't say the right thing at the right time, but was thinking it"

In real life you need to be able to communicate written, in formal talks, and in informal discussions.

Those of you who severely lack any of the three will be penalized. Just like someone who can discuss a topic orally but could not write it up would be penalized.

Well, you’d do badly.

Of course the current setup works badly for those who explain it much better by speaking.

At my uni, you could prepare a written answer. The professor would read your written answer and ask follow-up questions.

you could ask for reasonable accommodations - e.g. if you have a recognised medical condition, or even just going through a rough time - e.g. ask to be allowed to write down your answer while they wait.

Even with extensive notes and prep-time in a one-on-one?

Can you communicate it in real-time through writing? Maybe that's an accommodation that could be done?