Aren't tuition fees terrible? If you were left wing, you could say that they are a tax on learning. Just as airport tax is a tax on holidays, and sales tax is a tax on that frilly new top you bought last week. Come to think of it, no tax is that popular or generally supported.

Why do we take it for granted that higher education should be free? Just like that holiday or frilly top, the purchaser derives some benefit from the transaction and agrees to pay the tax. But in the case of a degree, the benefit is not as superficial as a nice tan, or looking seductive in the pub, but a lifetime opportunity to earn high wages in a satisfying and interesting job.

But, the voices of student organisations cry, learning should be free for all with generous grants and inspirational teaching. Yet look where that position has got higher education. Fees are rising-soon to be £3000 ($4800; €4300) a year-and the number of academics dedicated to teaching is falling.

How many people do you know who complain about tuition fees, but are quite happy to spend £40 a week on alcohol?Of course, you cannot blame students for trying to get a better deal-everyone, from train drivers to firefighters, wants a better deal-but it is important to remember that if everyone wants to go to university, someone has to pay for it. The ethos in Britain of the individual deserving everything but paying nothing is largely responsible for many of the problems politicians have about speaking openly on taxation.

In an ideal world, we would not have to pay tax for anything, and we would not cringe when we fill up the car with super unleaded. But to pay for the better health service, the better transport system, and the better schools, for which everyone is demanding, the government needs money. So what is wrong with asking medical students to make a small contribution towards the £20 000 a year cost of their degrees.

Well, comes the familiar response, we cannot come out of medical school with £30 000 debt, can we? But why not? Just think for a moment what a fantastic deal this really is. For £30 000 of loans, most of which do not grow in real terms, you get guaranteed lifetime employment, a starting salary of around £25 000 with rapid pay progression and a great job.

This is also the missed opportunity to widen access. All the measures taken over the past five years have universally failed to increase the number of students from poorer backgrounds. A recent survey showed that what was euphemistically called "debt aversion" was an important factor deterring those from lower socioeconomic groups from applying to university.

A practical solution would be to change not the entire university regime, but the way in which young people are recruited for medicine. A convincing case could be made, today, even to the "debt averse" (isn't everyone?), about the ease with which a £30 000 or even £40 000 debt can be managed with a high salary. But it is unlikely that the left wing sorts who campaign on these issues-the ones who voted for the government that introduced tuition fees-will ever try to implement a practical solution to the funding crisis.

Students themselves are partially responsible for the fees debacle. Instead of coming to a compromise with government about a solution that is both realistic and affordable, they have asked for the earth and predictably got nothing. Tuition fees should have been seen as a challenge to improve higher education, by turning students into consumers. And consumers have real power to demand high standards, good quality teaching, and modern facilities. Government spending formulas have gradually shifted the focus of universities from teaching students to research. Introducing tuition fees was a squandered chance to redress that balance back in favour of the primary function of universities-to educate.

The most frustrating thing about the current system is that it does not go far enough towards meeting costs for living and tuition. The simple solution is greater student loans, which should have been the focus of campaign of student leaders, rather than the same futile demands for a free for all that have been made for the last five years and will undoubtedly be made for the next 50.

Guidelines: We intend publishing within 24 hours all responses that contribute substantially to the topic under discussion. To avoid points that have already been made please read other people's responses before posting your own. All responses will be eligible for publication in the paper studentBMJ, providing that current appointment and place of work are given. Name and email address are required to send a response and will be published with the response.

Please note: When writing a respnse to a response, please enter the original title of the article and the author of the response you are responding to.