When you're growing staff by 100's of percent year over year recruiting has to be one of the most important tasks you can put energy behind. You want the right people on the right teams and you don't want a random non-tech person making the determination.
I see engineers over-worked, up to their ears and always complaining about interviewing. I often wonder, we're in a rational, problem solving industry but we can't see the simplest problems. You're over worked and up to your ears because the team doesn't have enough people on it or the "right people" in it and you're slammed. Does it make more sense to just keep working your backlog or take time to get quality people on the team so you can double your velocity on your next sprint? Why is this so hard for people to see?
You have to kiss a lot of frogs to find the right people for your team. It's a numbers game, perhaps it's hard for programmers to understand that the hiring process is a lot like debugging, most people don't like doing it but if you don't things will break and stay broken.
All this said I do think companies have a hard time figuring out how to balance this. I'm consulting right now with a company that has a very large recruiting team and crazy hiring goals. Meanwhile they were sending a lot of "questionable" candidates to the engineering teams. Engineers were bitching about this to me over lunch in the hallways etc. My response, simple, I swam up stream. I started meeting with the recruiting team, reviewing as many candidates as I can and helping them develop a better process. We're setting goals and measuring our rejection rates and getting feedback on each one even if it went bad. Recently I told them that if we're cutting someone on site to let me do it. I want to meet these people before we cut them to understand what went wrong, did we do something wrong? Did we cut the wrong candidate? I want to give everyone the benefit of doubt and figure out how to improve the process. Could we have avoided wasting their time and ours?
In the OP's case perhaps upstream should have been measured by how many she rejected. They should have been incentivized to improve their own "quality score" instead of burying people on the "well-calibrated interviewer" list.
You can sit there and bitch about something that is broken.. Or you can choose to fix it.. Which will it be!?