A bold shift back to the oldest exam format: oral assessments to outpace AI cheating.
Democracy Dies in Darkness
Higher Education
A growing cadre of educators is embracing oral exams as a way to gauge genuine understanding without relying on AI tools like ChatGPT.
December 12, 2025 at 6:00 a.m. EST
When the students in Catherine Hartmann’s honors seminar at the University of Wyoming faced their final assessments this month, they encountered a method of evaluation that traces back to the era of ancient philosophers—the oral exam.
In this approach, professors ask students to articulate their reasoning, defend their conclusions on the spot, and engage in live discussion. The format emphasizes spoken clarity, depth of comprehension, and the ability to think on one’s feet, making it harder for AI platforms to substitute for true learning. By testing the student’s ability to explain concepts verbally, instructors can assess nuance, logical progression, and the capacity to respond to follow-up questions in real time.
Proponents argue that oral exams reveal gaps that written work can conceal and encourage students to develop stronger communication skills, critical thinking, and the habit of thoughtful dialogue. Critics, however, caution that the format can be intimidating, may introduce subjectivity, and could disadvantage non-native speakers or underrepresented groups who are less comfortable speaking in high-stakes settings.
Hartmann’s students members navigated a final that demanded not just memorized facts but the ability to interweave ideas, address counterarguments, and demonstrate mastery through spontaneous explanation. The move toward oral evaluation is part of a broader trend toward preserving academic integrity in an era where generative AI tools are readily accessible.
As campuses weigh these methods, several questions arise: Can oral exams scale across large courses, and how can instructors standardize scoring to minimize bias? Do conversational formats truly measure understanding as effectively as traditional essays or problem sets, or do they test a student’s poise under pressure more than their knowledge?
In short, the shift toward oral examinations reflects a desire to keep human insight at the center of learning—and to ensure that what students demonstrate is truly theirs. But here's where it gets controversial: does the emphasis on live articulation favor certain communication styles over others, potentially skewing fairness? And this is the part most people miss—oral exams also challenge instructors to refine their questioning to builders of understanding rather than gatekeepers of opinion. What do you think: should colleges broaden the use of oral assessments, or should they reserve them for specific disciplines and contexts? Share your stance in the comments.
