jimoo wrote:A) The statistical method it seems you learned is extremely simplistic, since it well could be random variation. I can flip a coin 28 times and get 28 heads in a row and the outcome is still valid. Since we don't know the variance here, it is hard to say.

That might be a reasonable equivalent if we were discussing a simple mechanical process like the flipping of a coin. But, obviously, we're not - we are discussing a complex and at least somewhat subjective non-mechanical process. Given that, describing this as equivalent to '28 heads in a row' seems...well...simplistic.

jimoo wrote:Placing the onus on a single public entity to counteract or "fix" percieved or real, natural or unnatural, gender biases in an entire profession is pure folly.

I don't really disagree with you on this. I'd just point out that this is an example of yet another situation where, in the absence of any serious engagement with the problem at the state or federal level, our local politicians are looking to solve it.

I don't know if I agree with your hyperbole that this is 'pure folly.' It's definitely sub-optimal, though.