Indeed, pedagogy is important to staving off the end of mathematics.

That sounds dramatic, but it’s really obvious if you think about it. Right now, a person has to study for about 20 years (on average) to make novel contributions in mathematics. They have to learn what’s come before, the techniques, the results, etc. If mathematics continues, eventually it could take 25 years, or 30 years, or even a whole lifetime. At some point, most people will not be able to understand the work that’s been done in any subfield (or the work required to understand a subfield) in a human’s life. I claim this is the logical end of mathematics, at least as a human endeavor.

Now, there will be some results which refine other work and simplify results, but being able to teach a rapidly growing body of literature efficiently will be important to stave off the end of mathematics.

There's a Scott Alexandar story that plays with this exact topic: Ars Longa, Vita Brevis [1]

To your point, I think you're right. I'm not in mathematica, but the value of good pedagogy on shrinking the time it takes to get people to the forefront of any field feels like it's heavily overlooked.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/