As physicians in various stages of our medical training, we contend that the next most important question to address is to what degree nighttime intensivist presence impacts the education of residents and fellows. Survey data from two studies suggest that house staff perceive less autonomy when having 24-h supervision.3,4 Whether this translates into less overall competency and more overreliance on guidance that can affect trainees’ future medical practice and knowledge base has yet to be resolved. Identifying a causal relationship, if any, between nighttime intensivist coverage and house staff education may prove to be an arduous task. Nonetheless, surrogate end points, such as patient, family, and nursing evaluations of overnight house staff trained in these two different staffing models; procedural complication or failure rates of overnight house staff; or even simulation-based testing, may help clarify this murky relationship. Furthermore, the curtailed clinical exposure of house staff in the era of duty hour regulations more than ever necessitates verifiable assurance of high-quality training. Even in the single-centered randomized trial conducted at the University of Pennsylvania, residents were “expected to review all new admissions and critical events with a fellow, an intensivist, or both, in person or by telephone within 1 hour.”5 As more academic medical centers move toward adopting nighttime intensivist supervision, gone may be the days when house staff, yet not their patients, have to live, die, and learn with the decisions that they alone make. We call on future investigators and studies of 24-h intensivist coverage to include house staff education as a meaningful end point.