First scrutiny over the weekend focused on the eye-watering hike in the cost of humanities studies for students. But analysts are now venturing deeper into the weeds

The very learned Andrew Norton suggests that the feds may have mucked up Table Ten in Friday’s briefing paper, which set out course costs by field. He suggests that five, not 15, disciplines could end up with course costs that exceed funding rates.

And wonks (the wonkiest) at the Australian Technology Network have looked more at what the new funding model will mean for their members, (initial response was in CMM on Monday).

The ATN now raises three issues.

*  the “overall reduction in the funding universities get for teaching each of our students … particularly in priority areas like engineering and science”

* funding growth rates tied to campus location. “While many ATN universities are located in the centre of our capital cities, we teach a diverse range of students, many from our growing outer suburbs and regions.”

* ATN “welcomes” the National Priorities and Industry Linkage Fund and Transition Fund, but adds, “we will want to see these funds properly enshrined in legislation and are designed in way that ensures both equitable and effective use of funding.”