This finding in the OfS report reflects an increasingly common sentiment within HE:
Participants raised concerns that students who can access more powerful tools would be able to benefit from additional features and functionality, widening existing inequalities as AI becomes increasingly integrated into students’ study practices
It’s important recognise how untenable this ambition is. A premium Claude subscription currently costs £180 in the UK. If you want to use Fable extensively and/or do extensive Claude Code work it is possible to spend hundreds of pounds a week extra on top of this core subscription.
It’s not possible for universities to commit to unlimited access to frontier models for all students at the current pricing model, let alone the pricing we are likely to see in a few years time. The sooner we recognise this fact the better the debate about AI and equity be.
It is plausible to offer students an equitable floor i.e. minimum standard of access. I remain unconvinced the opportunity costs are worthwhile. Would you rather give students access to a model there is little evidence they actually want or give them better staff:student ratios? But it’s plausible, whereas offering students an equitable ceiling just isn’t and I find it slightly confusing how little remarked upon this is.
