The new uni-fees schedule rates a 'C' for economics and equity

Yet also, it appears, students will now cover even more of overall course costs.

The government's course contributions are highly uneven

The second alibi is, total (government plus student) funding will better match "contemporary" delivery costs, in each field. Great news, for bean-counters.

In most fields, government picks up more of the total costs. Even then, the student usually faces $7,700 or $11,300 a year, not the $3,700.

In a few cases, the student carries the bigger load. Says Tehan: "The student contribution for Law and Commerce will increase by 28 per cent, for the Humanities it will be 113 per cent."

But those domains aren't comparable. Only the first two are well-trodden avenues, to higher "private returns".

Why hoist Humanities (or Communications) to $14,500 student contribution, with only $1,100 government topup? While English and Languages plummet to $3,700, with $13,500 and $16,500 respectively from government. Surely the last two aren't vastly dearer to deliver. Or crucially larger "national priorities".

Perhaps Tehan doesn't want students to miss language study. As he once did. The predictable outrage over the big hit to Humanities is a bonus.

Rationales for high-low student contributions are shallow

Tehan's key alibi, is to reduce student contributions, in predicted areas of employment "growth". He settles on Health, Science and Technology, Education, and Construction.

This early into COVID, why base policy detail, on what 73 profs call untenable assumptions about future industry growth?

Nevertheless, courses in Tehan growth-areas go "cheaper". Purportedly, "government wants the best outcomes for the broader public".