{shortcode-aeb722d4a75e8ee9c0953787c5b09f8566fcf8d3}

Artificial intelligence is changing education. If Harvard wants to keep its students honest, our exams need to change too.

Many of the classes I’ve taken so far have required a final paper, researched and written in advance, and worth a major part of my grade. I spent all-nighters holed up in Lamont when these papers came due, suffering the consequences of my procrastination and resisting the urge to plug my prompt into ChatGPT.

But the temptation of AI-powered cheating is great. Harvard students famously find it difficult to prioritize their academics over other pursuits, and AI makes spending time on extracurriculars instead of essays all too easy.

The solution is simple: in-person, written or oral exams.

A 2024 survey found that almost 90 percent of students reported using generative AI, with most users using it at least once a week. Acceptable AI-use policies vary per class, with some forbidding all use and others encouraging experimentation. But when so many students have made AI a regular part of their lives, how can any professor ensure that their policies are being followed?

It’s time to go back to basics. If the College wants to promote intellectual integrity, in-class essays, one-on-one defenses of final papers, or full oral examinations are the path forward.

One AI-proof option is in-class final essays, conducted via pen and paper or lockdown browser, so students don’t have the option to outsource their critical thinking. There are many ways to customize this option according to the class format and its examination needs.

While students may feel an initial blow when they realize their grades depend on their in-the-moment critical thinking, writing skills, and knowledge of course materials without any outside resources — AI or otherwise — professors can dull the shock. Whether it's allowing students to pick from multiple prompts to answer, or releasing sample questions in advance so students know what to expect, in-class essays can be accommodating while still effective.

This wouldn’t be anything novel for many students, just an old skill fallen out of practice. Both International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement programs require students to complete timed essays to pass some social science and humanities exams. Plenty of Harvard students arrive having completed these exams. In-class final essays are merely a return to form.

However, an in-person essay isn’t always the best option. In many cases, students’ intellectual exploration benefits from the opportunity to delve into a specific research topic for weeks in advance. It’s here that a traditional oral examination could benefit undergraduates.

If students have the opportunity to submit a paper as part of their final grade, they should have the obligation to prove that it's their own work. This could take the form of a 10 minute conversation with their professor as an accompaniment to a research paper, a mild addition that would help professors ensure students know what they’re talking about — and that it’s not just AI talking for them.

Alternatively, students could complete a standalone, extensive final oral examination on course material.

These exams would either expose an inadequate knowledge of the material or allow students the opportunity to show true mastery.

Oral examinations also prepare students for life post-grad. If students learn to articulate their ideas now, they’ll be better equipped to argue with their relatives on Thanksgiving, advocate for themselves in the workforce, or defend a master’s or PhD thesis.

Incorporating oral exams isn’t unheard of at the College. Some concentrations, like History & Literature and Social Studies, already require students to complete oral examinations to graduate. Educators favored oral exams long before the advent of ChatGPT, likely because they require students to genuinely internalize their learning and make it part of their natural vocabulary.

These changes wouldn’t be popular. I’m the first to complain when a professor assigns too many pages of reading. And that’s exactly why these measures are necessary.

It’s time to do our work ourselves instead of delegating it to AI. It’s time to hold ourselves to the standards that the Harvard name implies.

Victoria L. Dolan ’28, a Crimson Editorial Editor, lives in Kirkland House.