You're describing a job position which relies almost completely on product-specific experience, which means that a new employee for this position without the specific experience would not be productive until successfully trained. Not all high-pay jobs are like that: in some positions you can be a great asset for the company even if you don't know the product-specific details in-depth yet.
The problem is that not-so-great recruiters have difficulties in recognizing which jobs require a product-specific experience and which allow for a more generic profile as long as the correct skills are there, so in case of doubt they tend to be over-specific.
About hiring juniors and training them, it's always a risk but you should be able to retain more of them. If all of them run away as soon as they can I would investigate the issue, maybe your company is not proposing a career path interesting enough.
Chingos said there’s no way that Georgia or other states can write their own high-quality tests at a lower cost.
“If they’re going to spend less than the consortia, they’re going to get a worse test,” he said. “There may be reasons why Georgia thinks the PARCC tests aren’t appropriate for Georgia, but there’s no way to get around the math here.”
The math might be sound, but the logic is definately lacking.
If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn