I think that the exams in Belgium are made in such a way as to eliminate as many students as possible to reduce the cost (as there are no limits on the number students). So the exams are in fact very difficult and competitive. Because all universities studies are very generalist (it means that if one studies economics/management, they also need to study languages, maths, sciences, psychology, sociology, etc.), it is very difficult to graduate if one is not good at one subject. No need to try studying law if you were not good at maths or languages at school, because both are included in the law curriculum. I also hesitated to study history because one must be quite good at Latin already before entering university. It's so full of such absurdities that 1) it is unnecessarily difficult, and 2) people graduating are good generalits (e.g. to become politicians, CEO's, etc.), but poor specialists, and the market mostly needs specialists.
That is probably why European universities get lower rating when comparing specialised knowledge with US universities (the UK is an exception, as it is a bit closer to the US system). Yet, American students that come to study in Belgium have a really tough time, because justly one must be good at much more than one's speciality to pass in Belgian universities. I think that the system in most continental European countries is very similar.
In other words, specialists should graduate from US universities, while generalists should come from European ones. It is evident that US universities are no match to European ones for giving a broad knowledge of many subjects and good general culture. That is why I can't understand how some US cadres managed to get a job while speaking only English and having a poor geopolitical knowledge. The Japanese system is of course closer to the American one, as it was imposed by the US after WWII.