When we were students, it used to take time to access an article. We used to go to the library, look through indexes and spend a significant amount of our time to access information.
Today, thanks to the internet, students have the world's literature in their pockets. They can access the same article in seconds.
It is no longer a question of accessing information; it is a question of choosing which of all the information is really necessary.
Not all scientifically correct information can be applied to every patient. Medicine is not memorization; it is the ability to make the most appropriate decision for each patient. The new generation does not want to see the result, but the reasoning behind the decision; they do not want to know what to do, but why that path was chosen and whether there is another option.
In the past, access to knowledge was limited. Therefore, the teacher who held the information was naturally decisive. Today, information is accessible to everyone. Now, being a lecturer is not a matter of passing on knowledge, but of interpreting that knowledge correctly and clearly explaining the reasoning behind one's decision.
This brings us directly to the issue of merit.
Because in the information age, a title alone is not enough. What makes a lecturer different is his/her knowledge, experience and clinical reasoning power. Students want to see an educator who can really think, weigh and justify their decisions. If there is no merit, it is not possible to expect quality education. A qualified teacher raises qualified physicians.
This did not minimize the role of the teacher. On the contrary, it has made it more difficult. It is no longer enough just to explain. It is necessary to clearly explain what clinical data he/she based his/her decision on, how he/she evaluated the alternatives and the reason for his/her choice. Because clinical reasoning is learned by modeling, not by lecturing.
This is precisely why the method of education itself needs to be updated.
Education cannot be measured solely by course completion. What is essential is to assess whether the student is able to perform a specific clinical competency safely and independently. The evaluation system should be based on the question “can he/she do this job safely?” rather than “did he/she take the course?”.
Simulation and skills laboratories should become widespread. Students should not try a procedure on a patient for the first time. This is necessary for both patient safety and student confidence.
Turkey has a strong point: intensive patient practice. The student encounters the real case early. This is a great advantage. But in order for this advantage to be sustainable, the balance between education and service must be right.
Today, the performance system evaluates professors on the number of procedures and points. The number of procedures performed is measured, not the quality of education. On such a basis, the instructor cannot slow down, pause and discuss, or analyze the case at length with the student. However, good education requires time and attention, not quantity. In a system measured by the number of procedures, it is inevitable that education will take a back seat.
It is not possible to provide good education and high performance at the same time under the pressure of outpatient clinic load and points. The quality of education cannot improve without correcting this contradiction. Academic staff should have protected time for education. Teaching should be defined as a real value. Otherwise, instead of training good physicians, the system will tend to produce fast services.
Feedback culture should be strengthened. Instead of a single internship grade, there should be open and regular evaluation throughout the process. Students should know where they are strong and where they are lacking.
There is also the question of the environment.
If a student is belittled when he/she asks a question, he/she stops talking after a while. If they are humiliated when they make mistakes, they avoid taking responsibility. However, medicine requires making decisions and taking responsibility.
A safe learning environment is therefore essential. There can be a hierarchy. But respect must be mutual. Fear narrows thinking. Trust develops it.
Times have changed.
Knowledge has increased.
Questioning has increased.
But the essence of medicine has not changed.
Seeing the human being.
Taking responsibility.
Seeking the truth.
It is not a question of young people changing.
The question is whether we are able to establish a system that is in line with the changing times, based on merit, and that does not oppress education based on performance.