Enthusiasm to learn and standardization: Outdated concepts?

Recker et al.1 comprehensively and clearly summarize recent global trends in obstetrics and gynecology education. Advances in digital platforms, simulation, telemedicine, and artificial intelligence have undoubtedly streamlined training and enabled time-efficient and increasingly standardized education. As a retired obstetrician–gynecologist who continues to work in a small institution, I have personally benefited from these developments. I can now update my knowledge while sitting comfortably at home. I do not argue against this trend. Rather, I wish to draw attention to two issues that are rarely discussed: enthusiasm to learn and standardization. First, enthusiasm. I vividly recall my initial gratitude for remote and digital learning during the COVID-19 era; it prevented intellectual stagnation during an unprecedented period. Today, many scientific meetings are held in hybrid format. Faced with the choice between attending in person or online, I often select the latter—simply to avoid the effort of travel. I must admit, however, that my engagement is not the same. Topics that once held my complete attention now occasionally accompany a moment of drowsiness. The promise of a “recording to watch later” quietly weakens concentration, and, in truth, that later viewing rarely happens. A similar shift is seen in surgical education. In the past, observing a senior professor perform a radical hysterectomy was a singular opportunity. Colleagues and I competed for a place in the operating room, standing for hours, fully absorbed. Today, such procedures can be viewed repeatedly and conveniently, even during a tea break. Convenience is undeniable—but the urgency to be present, to watch with intensity, may slowly and imperceptibly fade. Efficiency may come at the cost of motivation. The second issue is standardization. I have witnessed the introduction of simulation, role-play, OSCEs, and AI-assisted learning into undergraduate education. Initially, these tools stimulated active thinking. Over time, however, many trainees became accustomed to these educational materials, with learning gradually shifting toward reproducible performance. For example, medical interviews increasingly follow memorized sequences designed to secure good scores. Individual thought and genuine responsiveness risk being replaced by adherence to form. The same applies to surgical videos. Repeated exposure to a “typical” procedure may give the impression that there is only one correct way. Yet, real medical practice consists of countless variations. It is neither possible nor desirable to standardize every scenario. Earlier generations were taught surgical concepts rather than exhaustive technical detail. Concepts are transferable; they allow adaptation when reality diverges from the textbook. These are not arguments against technology or standardization themselves, but reminders of what they cannot replace. I am not a Luddite. I continue to value these innovations in lifelong learning. My point is simple: While we refine and expand educational technologies, we must also preserve enthusiasm and encourage concept-driven, heterogeneous thinking rather than uniform performance. These two elements are essential if we are to train thoughtful, flexible clinicians who keep patients—not systems—at the center of care. This reminder applies to all of us, including myself as a lifelong learner. The author has no conflicts of interest. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.