Cacoethes Scribendi

Placements are nearing, and I,like most of my classmates,am developing cold feet. As always, most companies insist on strong fundamentals in C and C++,which are appraised in the written tests,while the interviews are more comprehensive as questions are asked on a wider range of subjects .
There are times when I do wonder whether the companies have got their selection procedure right. In most tests,the programming puzzles that are posed revolve around syntactical quirks/discrepancies and other pitfalls in the language,that one can always get used to with a bit of exposure.
I,for one, would have flunked miserably in most of these C-puzzles papers ,a couple of months ago. But with exposure,I've gained confidence that should hopefully see me through the written tests at least . The point that I am trying to make here is that nowhere in these papers are they testing whether we possess a sound algorithmic approach to problem-solving ,which as we know is indispensable in a good programmer. The present system is,in my opinion,not very effective in separating the wheat from the chaff. It fosters mediocrity and allows even average programmers like me to entertain hopes of getting through.