Educators Are Weaponizing the Viva Because AI Made the Essay Worthless

A lecturer posted to Bluesky this week with a simple declaration: next year, 60 percent of the mark is an extended essay, and 40 percent is a viva — a live oral examination where students have to explain, in real time, exactly where they found each source and why they believed it. "Literally where did you find this source and tell me about it," the post read. "I'm marking a big pile now and this AI shit is out of control." The post got 18 likes in a community that usually measures engagement in single digits, which in academic Bluesky terms is the equivalent of going viral. What's striking isn't the frustration — that's been present in {{beat:ai-in-education|education conversations}} for two years. What's changed is the strategy. A separate post, which gathered even more engagement, described a different approach with the same underlying logic: ban AI tools outright, move to handwritten in-class work for most assignments, but keep the research paper — with one modification. Students must produce an appendix documenting every step they took to find each peer-reviewed source, in enough detail that the instructor could replicate the search from scratch. "I should be able to replicate their searches," the post said. Both educators have arrived at the same conclusion independently: the problem isn't the essay format, it's the invisibility of the process. Make the process visible, and AI becomes useless. This is a meaningful shift from where the conversation was eighteen months ago, when the dominant {{beat:ai-ethics|ethical}} debate in education circles was about detection — whether Turnitin could reliably catch AI-generated text, whether plagiarism checkers were ready, whether institutions had the tools. That argument has quietly collapsed. Educators who've been grading long enough know what a student's voice sounds like, and they know when it disappears, but they also know that "sounds AI-generated" is not a disciplinary standard that holds up. The viva is the answer to that problem: you cannot fake knowing something in a live conversation with someone who spent thirty years in your field. The appendix is the answer to the sourcing problem: you cannot fake a documented search trail without doing most of the intellectual work the assignment was meant to test in the first place. A third post added a different register to the thread — not a policy proposal but a rebuttal to the familiar disability-access argument that defenders of AI tools often deploy. Invoking Christy Brown, the Irish writer and painter who had cerebral palsy and typed with his left foot, the poster called the framing "a fucking insult to people with disabilities." The point was sharper than it appeared: the argument that AI enables creative access has always relied on a conflation between tools that help people communicate and tools that think on their behalf. Brown's work was indisputably his own. The question these educators are asking — and answering through oral examination — is whose work is actually whose. The viva doesn't just catch cheating. It restores authorship as something that can be verified.