I don't know that I've ever been more torn about a comment than this one. I worked in both "core dev" and professional services development, and have seen what comes from well-architected software design, the sort of architecture that only experienced top-line CS graduates (or several-decades-worth-of-experience autodidacts or engineers) seem capable of producing (IMHO, YMWV)...
...and have seen many, many 1.0's, shelfware, etc.
A CS grad from a top-flight school with excellent experience is worth their weight in gold, at least on teams of multiple people developing big systems - you want at least one, they will take care of data design, software architecture, etc., and likely cause your code to be more robust, more maintainable, etc.
But motivated college grads (I'm Canadian, not sure what the US term would be), talented engineers, and autodidacts can crank out code like nobody's business. I don't know that I'd want to built a multi-year "core services" library out of it, but PoCs, MVPs, 1.0's, and demoware? Why not? And the top-flight CS grad might be wasted there.
I'm torn because I care about quality, but really high quality only matters for the really long-lived system, the health-and-safety-critical system, and the system that must survive on its own with minimal human intervention and maintenance.
Were I building a radiation control for healthcare, I would want electrical engineers and CS grads from top-flight systems. Ditto military avionics.
If I was building apps, apps, apps, servers built atop well-architected OSS libraries, etc., I'd want code, fast, and I'd balance quality Vs lifetime to maximize profit, and probably hire less experienced, less well trained devs who "give good face", understand requirements, and code fast.
The libraries themselves? Good question....
I don't have a conclusion. But j45 is right, customers don't care so much - but they don't want 3AM bugs, either. It's a trade-off.