I've lost track of the times I've had to explain that no, a contractor won't help because A) It will take longer to train them than actual work and / or B) If the problem was simple enough that a general tech contractor could solve it, *I* would have already done so and / or C) Most of the time I've budgeted is for time based user alpha / beta testing which *cannot* be sped up without sacrificing results or sample set, regardless of the fleet of contractors we might throw at it.
Me: "I need 2 weeks for 4 users at 6 sites to test X. 1920 man-hours of in hand user experience is sufficient to validate our assumptions and catch significant bugs."
Mgmt: "Well, what if we hire a contractor?"
Me: "I'll still need 2 weeks for 4 users at 6 sites to test X, plus budget for a contractor I don't need"
We have all being inexperienced guys at one time. Chances are most what is learned at the university does not fit with the company, so is not a thing of education or intelligence but one of experience.
Back in the time where there where good manuals and people actually read instead of skim. Guys like this where face it with the RTFM answer to every possible question. Eventually they did become useful. Although, at this moment, that guy is as useful to Dilbert as a feral monkey stuck in his back.
Nowadays you are expected to know the answer of the meaning of the universe (42) and finish by last week a project that you just received today.
The equivalent of this guy in our office was handled very nicely. We had him 'represent' us in every nonsense meeting that came around (which was pretty much all of them). He actually thought that it was an honor. We would watch him lumbering off, attache case in hand. He'd send us an email of the 'high points' of the meeting, and that was that.