For decades, the formula for academic assessment has been pretty standard: you write a paper, submit it, and hope your arguments (and citations) hold up. But in today’s age of ChatGPT-written essays, AI paraphrasing tools, and copy-paste shortcuts, universities are starting to rethink whether the traditional essay is still the gold standard.
Their answer? A blast from the past: Oral exams.
Why Oral Exams Are Making a Comeback
Oral exams aren’t new. In fact, they date back centuries, with scholars defending theses in front of panels long before Scantrons and online submissions were even imagined. But recently, they’ve been re-emerging in classrooms beyond just doctoral defenses.
So why the resurgence?
- Plagiarism & AI Concerns – With the rise of essay mills and AI-generated content, it’s becoming harder for professors to trust written work as an authentic reflection of student ability.
- Real-Time Assessment – Oral exams let professors directly evaluate whether students understand the material—not just whether they can Google it.
- Skill Development – Being able to articulate complex ideas clearly, think on your feet, and defend an argument are skills employers value just as much as academic institutions.
As one professor put it, “An oral exam tells me what a student knows in 15 minutes, not what ChatGPT knows in 30 seconds.”
How Oral Exams Work in Practice
The modern version of oral exams doesn’t always look like a high-pressure interrogation. Some schools are redesigning them to feel more like conversations:
- Short Individual Exams – Students meet one-on-one with a professor for 10–20 minutes to answer questions about the material.
- Group Viva Sessions – Small groups of students discuss a topic together while faculty evaluate participation and understanding.
- Hybrid Formats – Students submit a short written piece, then present and defend it verbally to show deeper comprehension.
This flexibility makes oral exams more adaptable than the old one-size-fits-all essay model.
The Case For Oral Exams
Advocates argue that oral exams aren’t just a reaction to AI—they might actually be a better measure of learning overall.
- Authenticity – It’s hard to fake knowledge when you’re speaking live. If you don’t understand the material, it shows.
- Critical Thinking – Students can be pushed to explain “why” and “how,” not just recite facts.
- Communication Skills – Practicing how to present ideas under pressure is directly transferable to job interviews, presentations, and leadership roles.
- Less Busywork – Instead of grading stacks of essays, professors spend focused time engaging with students directly.
In short, oral exams can make learning feel less like checking a box and more like proving real competence.
The Case Against Oral Exams
Of course, not everyone is cheering for their return. For students especially, oral exams raise some very real concerns:
- Performance Anxiety – Not every student thrives under the spotlight. Some may know the material but freeze in the moment.
- Subjectivity – Unlike written exams with clear rubrics, oral assessments can feel dependent on professor bias or interpretation.
- Scalability – It’s tough to imagine a professor holding 200 one-on-one exams for a large lecture course.
- Equity Concerns – Students with disabilities, language barriers, or social anxiety may find oral formats especially challenging.
As one student posted online, “Oral exams measure confidence, not competence. Just because I stammer doesn’t mean I don’t know the answer.”
Student Reactions: Mixed but Growing
Student feedback on oral exams tends to split into two camps:
- The Supporters – These students see value in the challenge. They feel oral exams push them to actually understand the material rather than just cram. One student put it simply: “It’s harder, but in a good way.”
- The Skeptics – For others, oral exams feel like unnecessary stress layered on top of an already heavy workload. Many argue they prefer being able to carefully craft their thoughts in writing.
The middle ground? Students generally support oral exams when they supplement written work, not when they replace it entirely.
Can Oral Exams Work in the Age of AI?
The rise of AI doesn’t mean essays are dead, it just means educators are being forced to diversify how they measure student knowledge. Oral exams may be one solution, but they likely won’t be the only one.
Some institutions are already experimenting with blended assessment models:
- Written essays checked with AI detection tools
- Short oral defenses to confirm authorship and understanding
- Collaborative projects where process is as important as product
This kind of hybrid approach could give students multiple ways to demonstrate their abilities while keeping academic integrity intact.
What the Future Might Look Like
Imagine a future classroom where:
- Students submit a project draft online.
- They then defend their project in a 10-minute oral exam with their professor.
- AI tools help flag suspicious similarities, but the oral component confirms whether students genuinely know their stuff.
It’s a mix of old-school rigor and new-school tech—a system that holds students accountable while also preparing them for professional environments.
Final Take: Fairer or Just More Stress?
Oral exams are making a comeback, not as a replacement for essays, but as a counterbalance to AI-driven shortcuts. They have clear benefits: authenticity, deeper engagement, stronger communication skills. But they also raise real concerns around fairness, anxiety, and scalability.
The truth is, oral exams alone won’t fix academic integrity. But as part of a larger toolkit, they might just give education a way to focus less on what students can copy and more on what they truly know.
For students, that means oral exams aren’t going away anytime soon. The best approach? Treat them less like a test and more like a chance to prove your voice is as strong as your knowledge.
