What really frustrates me with the industry as a whole, is this idea and philosophy of training for test. The result is a pilot who can execute a specified routine of manoeuvres to certain criteria. If something out of scope occurs they are ill equipped to deal with it.
Isn't that so true. But is happens all the time especially with students who have English a second language. One classic example is a flying school in Australia that focusses almost exclusively on training Chinese nationals who after reaching their CPL and instrument rating go back to China directly into the RH seat of various transport jets.
The syllabus for instrument ratings includes seven cross country IFR dual flights followed by the final test for the instrument rating. Instead of sticking to the CAA approved syllabus and sticking to separate routes and destinations on each dual flight, the school has its students flying the same route seven times and with expected R/T calls written on a piece of paper and used by the students. The test itself covers exactly the same route as those previously.
This is because they often lack the English language skills needed to do the cross-country flight and cover all the separation with other aircraft talking requirements.
It gets better. Before doing the first of the seven IFR cross-country exercises and the final test as above, the students "fly" exactly the same route as the test
seven times in a simulator.