[socialismisok]

Your example is poor, because most 8 year olds don't know how local networking works, but do know how shoes work.

But I'll engage with the questions intent. Would you hire a lawyer who doesn't know all the skills of their trade yet, because they are just entering the workforce? Does it impact his ability to practice law? Are they interested in learning but never had the opportunity? Sure, assuming I had something very straightforward I needed them for.

Heck, a lot of places offer discounts or free legal support based entirely on this premise - having an issue as a tenant? Go ask a young lawyer who is volunteering their time and is missing some skills, but knows the basics of landlord tenant laws.

[filoleg]

Let me correct their example to make it more on topic and relevant to the problem.

Would you hire a lawyer who cannot use a computer (so no email, digital records, etc) and communucates exclusively through fax machines?

Mind you, they can claim to be a good lawyer otherwise, since none of those things directly contradict their claim of good lawyer skills. But something tells me that if they don't use digital record-keeping and can't utilize PACER, I will have my doubts in their practical usefulness.

[socialismisok]

If they are willing to learn, and I need a cheap, entry level lawyer, why not?

Show up at office, get paperwork for a lease or a will, pay the lawyer, and move on.

An entry level engineer who doesn't know Linux is fine. An entry level lawyer who doesn't know pacer is fine. You just have to train them and only give them work they can handle with their skill set.

Some of the strongest engineers who walked through my teams started with no practical Linux knowledge, but they had a can do attitude. Give me the inexperienced but driven engineer over the experienced but unmoving engineer 10 out of 10 times.

[filoleg]

> If they are willing to learn, and I need a cheap, entry level lawyer, why not?

I am all for letting people to learn on the job. But I, personally, would rather not risk it, knowing that the difference between them "learning as they go" and already knowing it might end up making the difference between me walking free and ending up in jail.

If it was something more trivial and with much lower stakes, like a traffic violation ticket, then sure, I wouldn't be so opposed to a lawyer that is figuring things out as they go.

Also, I think you might've missed the point of my original comment. It is one thing when a lawyer might not know something due to still learning their stuff, and another one when it is clear that they arent willing/planning to do so. If someone still uses fax as their primary mode of communication and refuses to use computers altogether in 2022, I have a feeling that it isn't due to them still trying to get the hang of it.

[throwawaaarrgh]

"You just have to train them"

I have never worked anywhere where engineers got basic training. They were just expected to perform, and so they would perform poorly, because they lacked so much basic knowledge. There's such inconsistency and such little understanding that they often confuse each other and waste each other's time trying to figure out simple things.

That's the bulk of the entire industry now.

[socialismisok]

That's unfortunate. Both Google and Amazon gave my teams ample ramp up time. We used that to fix knowledge gaps and get people comfortable with our stack.

And everyone was expected to learn new skills over time, no matter their level or experience.