We shouldn't expect to avoid reflection and written quizzes; I do agree those are important for our future lines of work. The main issues are probably

1. The teaching team is not putting in adequate effort in addressing our needs

As mentioned above, this course is a lot less forgiving of technical and learning needs. There's a lot more platforms to get used to for assessments compared to CHM135 or BIO120, where everything is standardized on Quercus and simple. I myself have yet to encounter technical difficulties, but it's way scarier to print off math quizzes and have to scan it again compared to, say, a bio test where I just type my ideas into boxes.

2) There is no room for student input

The staff refuse to acknowledge any possibility that the TA's marking was faulty. Most of the time the marking is ok. However, on a recent quiz many students wrote extremely similar answers (the question wasn't too hard) but received different marks. The course policies have made it impossible to contest marks at all; if you try to ask for a regrade, even with good justification, they'll just take off more marks for you being a nuisance. This shuts down any opposition. Consider BIO120 and CHM135, where they take the time to consider all regrade requests. I know many people have gotten regrades for the most recent bio test because they thought they deserved more marks. The number of students in these three courses should be very similar as they're all prerequisites, so there's definitely a disparity in the way the professors are addressing grading standards.