Most people have to learn loads of information in a short time and former information doesn't get practiced after. In the span of 5 years, I learned trees at the end of year 1 and a bit at year 2. I didn't need them for anything I did past that. It wasn't until I sat down and practiced a little I was able to think in trees again.
Not everyone covers the same things. Loads of Leetcode tests and interviews apparently cover linked lists and tricks with linked lists. I got zero exercises on linked lists. Some structures require specific approaches, so if you have trouble getting a foot in, you'll fail miserably at any questions related to those structures no matter how simple or difficult.
There are other obvious points, but CS is simply too large a field. What one considers fundamentals is something another never uses, not even in libraries or frameworks. Easier is to prove that the student can learn what is deemed on an equal level as something else, and give them the tools to learn more on their own should they require to do so.
This all assumes the student in question has actually proven to know the material of the course, and the course covers some part of what people consider fundamentals. Things obviously change when considering some people get by despite not having proven they know the material, or CS courses missing these.
I also can't help but feel there is some irony in CS courses trying to accommodate an ever increasing need for more practical skills, ditching CS fundamentals and practicing them to do so, only to be met with interviews which test CS fundamentals despite the work not needing any of it.
Not everyone covers the same things. Loads of Leetcode tests and interviews apparently cover linked lists and tricks with linked lists. I got zero exercises on linked lists. Some structures require specific approaches, so if you have trouble getting a foot in, you'll fail miserably at any questions related to those structures no matter how simple or difficult.
There are other obvious points, but CS is simply too large a field. What one considers fundamentals is something another never uses, not even in libraries or frameworks. Easier is to prove that the student can learn what is deemed on an equal level as something else, and give them the tools to learn more on their own should they require to do so.
This all assumes the student in question has actually proven to know the material of the course, and the course covers some part of what people consider fundamentals. Things obviously change when considering some people get by despite not having proven they know the material, or CS courses missing these.
I also can't help but feel there is some irony in CS courses trying to accommodate an ever increasing need for more practical skills, ditching CS fundamentals and practicing them to do so, only to be met with interviews which test CS fundamentals despite the work not needing any of it.