70 people went for my current job. I took a massive step down into it, which is probably why I got it over and above qualifications as I am not as qualified as even the average person in my position (I don't have a PhD - everyone else in the whole world doing my job has a PhD, it seems).
It's quite interesting this question. 'Best qualified for the job' sounds objective but isn't isn't isn't. So when panels are saying that is what they are appointing on this basis of I feel suspicious because it's pretending that we are gender, race, identity blind and we are not. Panels saying that are actually by default engaging in gender, age, race, disability etc. discrimination. Otherwise, what's with all the white men in jobs? Because they are not better qualified at any level than women, certainly. I don't think you can eliminate unconscious social bias but you certainly can look at the employment record of your organisation and realise (and you're very lucky if you don't realise this) that you usually give senior positions etc. to white men and adjust your bar accordingly.
Speaking of which, though, you know the whole furore about schools failing boys because girls are outperforming them. My mum, a primary school teacher says this was always the case, that more boys went up to Grammar School because they designated a certain amount of Grammar School places for boys, (and a lesser amount for girls) so many of those places will have gone to boys outperformed by girls never given places.