Students, mentors, educational institutions, and funders want to make the best decision possible to maximize mentees’ success. Previous work has revealed the critical long-term impact of mentor-mentee relationships, opening the door for policy-relevant recommendations that could improve mentor-mentee matching. The article authored by AlShebli, Makovi, and Rahwan (2020)—the AMR article from now on—focuses on the little-known effects of gender dynamics on these relationships. The most controversial recommendation in AMR is that women mentees would do better with men mentors than women mentors. At best, we think this claim relies on weak evidence; at worst, this claim could be misleading and problematic. In this commentary, we describe several issues regarding definitions, methodology, and data quality in AMR. We offer alternative hypotheses rooted in past research regarding women’s lack of access to dissemination, training, and funding. If anything, these factors could significantly reduce or reverse the findings reported by AMR. We offer suggestions for controlling these effects and a research path forward for studying this important subject.