Many web developers would agree: jQuery does make various backend-related things easier.
An inherent property of things which make various backend-related things easier is loss of direct control over the interactions with the backend. While that may end up being a good thing if the "Man in the Middle" (MitM) is doing everything correctly, if there is a problem with the MitM's way of doing things at some point, the programmer has to either fix the MitM or request that someone else do it for them. This doesn't happen that often, however, because people build their applications around the MitM's. If something breaks, they change their code and that's that.
I tend to avoid any and all interaction with jQuery. Most of the things it simplifies are very simple to do using native JavaScript and hardly any extra work, and the thought of letting someone else do my work is, quite frankly, terrifying. If I can do it in native JavaScript, I will. If I have to write my own wrapper for the backend to simplify my calls in my main code, I'll do that. No problem. Is it a bad thing? No. Of course not. You can easily write things in native JavaScript, and I think of it as a more enlightening experience. You understand what you're doing, and you can change things much more easily.
In the "fancy effects" world, where everyone uses jQuery because of the transitions it has to offer, many people just expect to use the jQuery functions for their transitions and simply cannot live without them. That may work for them in their own projects, but for me it is, as one may expect, definitely not optimal. While I agree that writing them in code without using any previous knowledge is a difficult task, I would disagree that it is stupid not to do it; it is an enlightening experience and gives you much more control.
