Search Results

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to permeate higher education, educators face an increasing challenge in ensuring that students’ work is genuinely their own. One method gaining attention is the use of oral exams, a strategy that shifts away from traditional written assessments to create a more personalized and immediate evaluation of a student’s understanding. This approach, in many cases, helps to mitigate the risk of AI tools like ChatGPT influencing or even replacing student responses. However, while oral exams present several clear advantages in tackling this issue, they also come with their own set of challenges. In this analysis, we will explore the benefits and downsides of oral exams as an alternative to written exams in combating AI use at universities.   The Rising Threat of AI in Higher Education   The increasing use of AI in academia has prompted institutions to reconsider traditional assessment methods. AI tools, especially large language models like ChatGPT, offer students the ability to quickly generate sophisticated essays, solve complex problems, and even engage in creative tasks such as writing poetry. While these tools can be beneficial for research and learning, their misuse in exam settings undermines the academic integrity of assessments.   Written exams, long a staple of academic evaluation, are particularly vulnerable to AI intervention. Students can now input exam prompts into AI platforms, receiving tailored responses that bypass the necessity of independent thought and effort. This not only distorts the measure of student knowledge but also undermines the credibility of academic institutions, which rely on exams to assess students’ understanding and mastery of subject material.   To combat this, some professors, like Catherine Hartmann at the University of Wyoming, have turned to oral exams. This method is seen as a more direct way of assessing a student’s grasp of material, providing several advantages over written assessments in the fight against AI use in academic settings.   Benefits of Oral Exams in Preventing AI Misuse   Personalized Assessment of Understanding   Oral exams allow professors to engage with students in real time, asking follow-up questions and probing deeper into a student’s thought process. Unlike written exams, which are static and one-dimensional, oral assessments provide an opportunity for dynamic interaction. Professors can gauge not only the student’s knowledge but also their ability to think critically, explain concepts clearly, and respond to complex queries on the spot. This makes it difficult for students to rely on AI-generated answers, as they cannot simply paste responses into an oral exam scenario.   Immediate Verification of Student Knowledge   A key strength of oral exams is that they allow professors to immediately verify a student’s understanding. In a written exam, a student could potentially use AI to generate a coherent response, even if they lack the underlying comprehension. In contrast, oral exams provide the opportunity to ask follow-up questions or challenge a student’s reasoning, which is much harder for AI to mimic convincingly. For example, if a student cites a fact or concept incorrectly, the professor can immediately address this, ensuring that the student’s responses are grounded in their own understanding rather than external sources.   Decreased Opportunity for Cheating   While AI tools can assist students in producing written work, the same cannot be said for oral exams. Even if a student were to attempt to use AI during an oral exam, it would be immediately apparent if the student could not explain or defend their responses. The need for spontaneous verbal responses eliminates the time advantage AI provides during written exams, thereby reducing the opportunities for cheating.   Promotion of Critical Thinking and Communication Skills   Oral exams require students to think on their feet, engaging in live dialogue rather than relying on pre-written answers. This promotes critical thinking, as students must be prepared to articulate their reasoning, clarify their ideas, and defend their viewpoints in real time. Furthermore, oral assessments allow students to demonstrate their communication skills, which are increasingly valued in professional and academic settings. These skills are not as easily demonstrated in a written exam, making oral exams a more comprehensive evaluation tool.   Encouragement of Active Learning   Because oral exams often involve a back-and-forth exchange between the student and professor, they encourage a more active form of learning. Students must be prepared to engage in discussions and answer questions beyond the scope of the initial exam prompt. This approach fosters deeper engagement with course material and helps ensure that students are not just memorizing facts but are instead developing a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.   Downsides of Oral Exams   While oral exams offer many advantages, they also present several challenges that must be considered, especially in the context of combating AI misuse in universities.   Time and Resource Intensive   Oral exams can be significantly more time-consuming than traditional written exams. Instructors must schedule and conduct one-on-one or small-group oral assessments for each student, which can take considerable time, especially in large courses. Additionally, professors need to be highly skilled in conducting these exams, as they must be prepared to ask insightful follow-up questions and manage the flow of the conversation. For many universities, especially those with large class sizes, this presents a logistical challenge that may not be feasible on a wide scale.   Potential for Bias and Subjectivity   While oral exams can provide a more personal and nuanced assessment, they also carry the risk of bias. Professors may unintentionally favor students with strong verbal communication skills or those who are more comfortable speaking in high-pressure situations. Additionally, the subjective nature of oral exams means that different professors might assess students’ responses in varied ways, potentially leading to inconsistencies in grading. This subjectivity can undermine the fairness of the assessment process, particularly in large courses with diverse student populations.   Student Anxiety and Stress   Oral exams can be more stressful for students than written exams. Many students may experience anxiety about speaking in front of a professor or being put on the spot. This added pressure can negatively impact their performance, leading to responses that do not accurately reflect their true understanding of the material. While oral exams may help assess verbal communication skills, they might not always reflect a student’s knowledge under pressure, especially for those who perform better in written formats.   Challenges in Scaling Up   For large classes or courses with hundreds of students, conducting oral exams can be an impractical solution. The time and resources required to evaluate every student individually may make this approach unsustainable for many institutions, particularly in fields with large enrollments. Professors would need to find ways to scale the oral exam process without sacrificing the depth of evaluation, which could limit its widespread adoption.   Technological Limitations   While oral exams may reduce the risk of AI use, they are not entirely immune to technological influence. In some cases, students might still have access to devices that allow them to search for answers during oral exams, either by reading from a hidden screen or using external help. While professors can limit this through monitoring and testing conditions, the increasing prevalence of technology in everyday life presents a persistent challenge in maintaining academic integrity.   Conclusion   In the battle against AI’s influence in higher education, oral exams present a promising alternative to traditional written assessments. They offer personalized, real-time evaluations that test a student’s true understanding and critical thinking skills, reducing the opportunities for AI-assisted cheating. However, oral exams also come with significant downsides, including logistical challenges, potential bias, and the risk of increased student anxiety.   While oral exams may not completely replace written exams, they offer an important tool for educators to consider in response to the changing landscape of education. By finding a balance between written and oral assessments, universities may be able to maintain the integrity of academic evaluations while adapting to the digital age.

“Perception is reality.” It’s a phrase that echoes across politics, social media, and personal relationships — because it feels true. We navigate the world not through objective facts, but through emotional impressions, curated content, and instinctive reactions. But what happens when what we feel to be real turns out to be fiction? In Black Mirror’s Hotel Reverie, we find a perfect case study of this crisis. An AI-generated simulation, a love story with an unreal character, and a haunting collapse of emotional truth force us to ask: Is perception ever truly reality — or can it lead us further from it? “The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.” -Robertson Davies "...we create emotional truths in response to environments we don’t fully control..." What “Perception Is Reality” Really Means Today "Perception is reality." Is it really? It’s a phrase we hear all the time — in politics, on social media, in advertising, even in personal relationships. It feels right because it reflects the way we experience the world. But what if it’s also the most dangerous lie we tell ourselves? In Black Mirror’s Season 7, Episode 3 — Hotel Reverie — this tension comes to life in a way that’s deeply emotional and philosophically unsettling. What starts as a story about a glitch in an AI-generated movie simulation ends up exposing a more universal truth: we often feel things so intensely, so sincerely, that we start to believe our perception is reality — even when it isn’t. And this doesn’t just happen in sci-fi. It happens every day. On social media. In our voting decisions. In our trust or distrust of people, institutions, even ourselves. We’re not just watching the world — we’re constantly interpreting it, layering meaning onto everything we see. But what happens when the meaning we create doesn’t match the truth? Hotel Reverie: A Black Mirror Case Study Black Mirror s7 e3 - Hotel Reverie The episode follows Brandy, an actress cast in a virtual reproduction of an old movie. She’s the only real person in a simulated set full of AI-generated characters, one of whom is Clara. A glitch traps Brandy inside the simulation with Clara, and due to the way time is distorted inside the system, what amounts to months pass. Brandy and Clara grow close — even fall in love . There’s just one problem: Clara isn’t real. Moreover, Brandy knows this. She knows Clara isn’t conscious, isn’t autonomous, isn’t anything more than a script. But the feelings... Her feelings are real. The connection feels real to her. The relationship changes Brandy. And then Clara is reset. The glitch gets fixed by the so called "producers". No memory, no trace of what they shared. Just a blank character face. Brandy, left standing alone with real heartbreak over someone who never really existed, is forced to ask herself — and so are we: what was it all for? Why Brandy’s Story Is Ours Too Is her story related to our lives? In short: yes. Brandy’s story may be a fictional one, built on digital code and cinematic imagination, but the emotional architecture behind it mirrors the way we all build our own realities — every single day. We may not live in simulations, but we simulate meaning constantly. We curate our beliefs, decode signals from others, and interpret events not by what they are, but by what they feel like to us. Just like Brandy, we create emotional truths in response to environments we don’t fully control — and sometimes, barely understand. How Social Media Distorts Our Reality The first thing to mention has to be the social media. This issue of perception can never be discussed without mentioning social media. We form opinions based on filtered posts and curated lives on social media. We see a smiling couple and think their relationship is perfect. We see a vacation photo and assume a life of ease. We don’t see the fight that happened five minutes before the picture, or the credit card debt behind the image. Yet we feel like we know. That feeling becomes a kind of truth — and it shapes how we see ourselves and others. Political Beliefs: Why We Trust What Feels Right Political identities are related to our perception of what "feels right". Another perception that we usually fall for is about politics. We develop political identities not from objective fact, but from stories that feel right . Political allegiance is rarely based on deep policy research. More often, it’s built on narrative — who seems to care, who feels trustworthy, who “gets” us . Those feelings, once formed, are incredibly hard to shake. Even when confronted with contradictory evidence, many of us protect the perception — because it feels more real than the facts. This sub-topic actually deserves its own article. Let me get to there again. We almost always use, then believe in our own thoughts and perceptions in our personal relationships. We trust (or distrust) people based on one-off impressions, rumors, or online personas. A single comment can make someone seem arrogant or kind. A social media post can signal authenticity or manipulation. Yet people are more complex than any moment or message. Still, our brains love shortcuts, and we often construct entire judgments from fragments — then act as if those judgments reflect reality. Even after we see the reality, because it shatters the image we build for a long time, we tend to ignore it or even try to falsify the reality . The Psychology of Falling for an Idea, Not a Person "...We too often fall for projections — an imagined partner, a friend who we want to be someone they aren’t, a public figure we romanticize..." We tend to fall in love with ideas of people, not people themselves. Just like Brandy fell for a version of Clara that never truly existed, we too often fall for projections — an imagined partner, a friend who we want to be someone they aren’t, a public figure we romanticize. These versions live in our minds. When reality fails to match them, it’s not just disillusioning — it’s heartbreaking. And in most cases, it is not even our fault . This is actually the same thing as what happens with our personal relationships. We don't have enough time to get to "know" everyone. We almost always have to have projections on the people around us, and move on. Because if we do not do that, we would lose much more time "understanding" people , and as it is extremely normal that we can not get along with many of the people, the time spent with these people would be marked as a "loss" . To prevent or at least minimize this loss, we have to use perceptions. And we can move on quickly if the person does not match the perception that we have in our minds. Not as easy as it sounds, but it is theoretically practical. How We Construct Our Own Identity Even our own identities are shaped by selective self-perception. We tell ourselves who we are based on memory, mood, validation, and feedback loops — all filtered through emotion. We believe we’re strong or weak, lovable or unworthy, based on how our inner world interprets experience. But our self-perception is as malleable — and as fallible — as any other. In short, we’re all Brandy , to some degree. We live in constructs — not because the world is fake, but because our understanding of it is always partial, always personal, always shaped by perception. And when the truth intrudes — when someone shows us they’re not who we believed, or when a worldview collapses — we feel betrayed not by them, but by the illusion we helped create . "In short, we’re all Brandy , to some degree." Just like Brandy, we often know we’re seeing a version of the truth — and yet we feel as if it’s the whole truth. We act on that feeling. We build meaning from it. Sometimes we even reshape our identity around it. And when that perception collapses — when the person doesn’t love us back, when the politician betrays our hopes, when the carefully-crafted Instagram life turns out to be hollow — we’re left with the same question Brandy faced: Was any of it ever real? In many cases, the answer is no . Nothing was real, everything was fiction at some point. And that fiction was created only by us. Conclusion: Perception Isn’t Reality — But It Rules Us "Nothing was real, everything was fiction at some point. And that fiction was created only by us." We live in a time where perception often drives behavior more powerfully than truth does. Our emotions, biases, and assumptions shape our world more than the facts beneath them. And yet, as Hotel Reverie reminds us, the truth eventually reasserts itself — not always gently. Brandy loved someone who wasn’t real. And that love changed her. But the moment she was forced to confront the reality behind her experience, the emotional scaffolding collapsed. We may not be trapped in an AI simulation, but we are all navigating constructed realities . The challenge is not just distinguishing truth from illusion — it’s asking ourselves what we’re willing to feel, believe, and grieve in the process. Because even when we know something isn’t real, the ache it leaves behind can be.