In the AI age, oracy can be the most valuable graduate skill – if we instil it

Universities have spent decades refining how they teach students to write – and essays, dissertations, reports and written examinations remain the dominant methods by which knowledge is assessed.

However, a 2026 survey of undergraduates by the Higher Education Policy Institute found that 94 per cent of students are now using artificial intelligence (AI) in their assessed work. And when anyone can produce a polished document with a few prompts, the non-written form of communication becomes all the more important to employability.

Employers want to know whether someone genuinely understands their subject rather than merely presenting information assembled by a machine. Moreover, the ability to communicate directly, answer questions, think on your feet and establish credibility has always been important in the workplace. Whether explaining technical concepts to clients, pitching ideas to investors, leading teams, negotiating with stakeholders or persuading colleagues, professional success often depends on the ability to communicate clearly and confidently.

In the US, the National Association of Colleges and Employers reported in 2024 that verbal communication is already among the most sought-after graduate attributes among recruiters. And in the UK, CBI Economics found in the same year that employers place greater value on soft skills and practical experience than on grades or university reputation when making hiring decisions.

But while AI does not directly undermine oracy skills, it weakens the knowledge and understanding on which good communication depends. Since students no longer have to immerse themselves in a topic to produce a well-structured essay about it, many struggle even more to discuss that topic orally.

Equally, while good understanding is necessary for good communication, it isn’t sufficient. Even before AI came along, students frequently graduated with considerable subject knowledge but limited experience of – or aptitude in – communicating it.

Good communication involves understanding your audience, responding to feedback, interpreting social cues, demonstrating authenticity and building trust. These are deeply human capabilities that emerge through practice rather than passive learning. Unfortunately, at undergraduate level, oral communication was and remains relatively rare outside the intensive tutorial systems of a handful of elite universities.

Students may occasionally give presentations or participate in seminars, but oral communication is rarely treated with the same seriousness as written assessment. In many degree programmes, students receive little structured training in public speaking, persuasion or audience engagement. Indeed, speaking in public is increasingly regarded as an anxiety-inducing challenge that is best avoided.

Universities therefore face a strategic choice. They can continue to treat oral communication as a supplementary skill developed incidentally through academic study. Or they can recognise it as a core graduate capability deserving explicit attention within curricula.

It is important to acknowledge that teaching oral communication is neither cheap nor easy. Universities can deliver lectures, textbooks and online materials to thousands of students at relatively low marginal cost, but communication skills can only be honed through practice and critique. They require individual feedback, audience interaction and repeated performance.

At a time when many students are studying remotely or part-time, and staff-student ratios are under increasing pressure, providing this level of support has become even more difficult. But unless the issue is addressed, the value of degrees will be grossly undermined – and so will universities’ business models.

Fortunately, there are already some successful solutions, at least at the postgraduate level. The Three Minute Thesis (3MT) competition, developed at the University of Queensland and now adopted worldwide by over 1,000 institutions, challenges PhD students to explain years of research in just three minutes to a non-specialist audience. The popularity of the competition reflects a simple truth: communicating complex ideas clearly is difficult, valuable and learnable.

But another problem is assigning credit for participation in events that improve communication. Students may enter such a competition, deliver a conference presentation or produce a public-facing talk, but these activities are rarely recognised as evidence of employability or professional development.

This is one reason I launched My-Thesis, a platform designed to make graduate research presentations searchable and discoverable. The aim is not simply to showcase research (and potential employability), but to recognise communication itself as an academic achievement.

It is sometimes suggested that oral assessments – conversational exams – could be a better alternative to written assessment given AI’s ability to game the latter – and not only for doctoral students. If that suggestion were taken up, it would force universities to get serious about oracy at undergraduate level.

Imagine if every student graduated with evidence not only of what they knew, but also of how effectively they could communicate it. For undergraduates, this might mean demonstrating mastery of core ideas to diverse audiences. For postgraduates, it might mean demonstrating the ability to explain original research clearly and persuasively.

Knowledge remains important. But without the skills to communicate, interrogate and apply it, graduates will find themselves increasingly losing out to AI. That extra line on the CV could be the difference between success and failure – for graduates and universities alike.

Bruce Hood is chair of developmental psychology in society at the University of Bristol.