Universities across the globe are reconsidering a return to viva voce examinations—oral defenses of knowledge once common in higher education—as a response to the growing prevalence of AI-assisted cheating. With generative tools like ChatGPT and other large language models making it increasingly easy for students to outsource written assignments, institutions in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States are exploring face-to-face assessments to preserve academic integrity. Advocates argue that oral examinations, by requiring spontaneous articulation and critical reasoning, provide a safeguard against the plagiarism and ghostwriting now amplified by artificial intelligence.
Supporters of the shift point to worrying statistics: a 2024 survey by the Higher Education Policy Institute found that nearly one in three undergraduates admitted to using AI tools in their coursework, often without clear guidelines on ethical boundaries. While plagiarism-detection software once curbed copying from online sources, AI-generated essays pose a different challenge, producing original text that evades such systems. In this context, viva voce exams—where students must defend their ideas verbally before an examiner—are seen as a more reliable method of confirming genuine understanding.
The model is not new. Oxford and Cambridge have long relied on oral defenses in specific disciplines, and professional fields like medicine and law continue to use structured interviews and oral assessments to test competence. “When a student is asked to explain their reasoning in real time, it becomes much harder to mask a lack of understanding,” says Professor Emily Carter, an assessment expert at King’s College London. Critics, however, warn that oral exams can be stressful, subjective, and logistically difficult to scale for large cohorts, raising questions about fairness and accessibility.
Some universities are experimenting with hybrid models that combine written submissions with short oral defenses, aiming to balance efficiency with rigor. Pilot studies in Australia suggest that students actually benefit from these formats, reporting greater confidence in their communication skills and a deeper sense of accountability. At the same time, administrators acknowledge that training examiners, recording sessions for transparency, and accommodating students with anxiety or speech difficulties are essential steps in making the practice equitable.
The debate over reviving viva voce exams underscores a broader reckoning in higher education: how to adapt assessment in an era where technology outpaces regulation. While AI tools are not inherently malicious—they can enhance research and learning—unchecked use threatens the value of academic qualifications. By reintroducing oral defenses, universities may not only curb dishonest practices but also reemphasize the human qualities of articulation, critical thinking, and dialogue that machines cannot replicate. Whether the trend becomes a standard or remains a niche experiment will depend on how institutions balance rigor, fairness, and the realities of an AI-driven world.
Cybericonic 