Research on gender inequality in high-status careers often finds that women are less likely to persist–or reapply–following rejections from professional opportunities. We revisit this account by examining how performance feedback shapes persistence. Using data on 3,298 rejected applicants to Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, we analyze how performance feedback–specifically, applicants’ distance from the funding cutoff–affects the likelihood of reapplication. Contrary to conventional accounts, we find no overall gender difference in persistence: women and men are equally likely to reapply following rejection. Gender differences emerge only under conditions of highly negative feedback. Among applicants whose proposals fall far below the funding threshold, men are more likely than women to reapply, particularly in male-dominant fields. Drawing on interviews with 30 applicants, we show that these differences reflect gendered interpretations of feedback and variation in perceived reapplication effort. Returning to the quantitative data, we find that women who reapply following low-scoring proposals are more likely than men to secure funding in subsequent rounds. Examining persistence alone can therefore be misleading: women with low scores reapply less often, but when they do, they appear to exert more effort and are more likely to succeed, reflecting a more selective approach to pursuing opportunities.