The people in recruiting should have been doing a better job on quality.
I see no evidence that they were doing a bad job on quality. They do as good a job as they can. But recruiters are fundamentally unable to evaluate technical skills. The OP would be the first person that interviewee talked to who actually could judge technical skills, and her job was to be a rigorous filter, to remove the egregious candidates.
The other team members should realize how important it is to do the screening instead of pretending working on code was more important.
That part of the process was not being criticized here, but I would agree with it.
If an engineer thinks there is a 1:100 chance the person will get hired and they have to invest 2 hours in each person they'll never bother.
Trust me, engineers are made aware of the statistics. But it is one thing to see them in abstract, and another to look through all of the candidates that you, personally, have talked to.
I see no evidence that they were doing a bad job on quality. They do as good a job as they can. But recruiters are fundamentally unable to evaluate technical skills. The OP would be the first person that interviewee talked to who actually could judge technical skills, and her job was to be a rigorous filter, to remove the egregious candidates.
The other team members should realize how important it is to do the screening instead of pretending working on code was more important.
That part of the process was not being criticized here, but I would agree with it.
If an engineer thinks there is a 1:100 chance the person will get hired and they have to invest 2 hours in each person they'll never bother.
Trust me, engineers are made aware of the statistics. But it is one thing to see them in abstract, and another to look through all of the candidates that you, personally, have talked to.