You can be exposed to them, but without understanding them, and experiencing both good, bad, and really bad 'solutions' to them, and understand the impact (on the business, on the code, on security, on maintainability, etc)... you just can't really get all that in 2 years.
I know plenty of people who've been 'exposed' to certain type of tech problems, and the solutions they decide on are objectively really bad for any metric other than "stop this error from showing up on the screen right now".
I've been doing this for a bit over 25 years, professionally now, and... there's a lot I don't 'get' with current stuff. But I've seen and lived enough projects, in enough different situations, to have a good idea of impact of tech decisions, and to understand how to make tradeoff decisions.
I had someone call me up to 'fix' a problem in a system I'd given then 15 years earlier. It was still running, more or less the same, and... spelunking your own code 15 years later gives you a new perspective on the impact and value of decisions you make. Many of the things people get hung up on (code style, tabs/spaces/etc, particular naming conventions, etc) provide pretty much no value in digging in to old code that no one has touched or thought about in a decade. Correct comments, sample data, repeatable tests hold so much more value, but are harder to get people to commit to following through on.