In the past decade, American higher education had its own real-estate boom as many institutions added special student fees to pay the mortgages on new facilities. Some people have characterized this as a facilities arms race, with every college seeking a student union, athletic facilities, a fitness center, and other amenities that are at least as good as the next institution’s.

Are colleges’ motivations bad? No. Most institutions are simply trying to provide a full college experience for all students.

But here’s the problem: Many students — on some campuses most — don’t take advantage of these facilities. Many traditional-aged students have jobs that keep them busy, and many other students are working adults doing their best to balance school, work, and life — all without a moment to spare.

But other than choosing how many credit hours they want to take and whether they want to live on campus, students at most colleges don’t have a choice of what they want to buy or not buy. The price of a college education is fixed. Besides the cost of instruction, the price includes fees to pay down mortgages on facilities and mandatory student-activity and service fees to support personnel costs and operating expenses for amenities the students may not want or be able to afford — amenities like athletics programs, fitness and recreation facilities, concerts and other entertainment, health services, and more. At some universities, activity and debt-service fees now make up a quarter of the total cost of students’ education.

I’ve wondered for a long time if it isn’t time for another model, for a college that would offer just the basics — classroom, online, and blended instruction; selected academic-support programs; research, maintenance, and other necessities. So I was pleased to read that New Hampshire has already developed a so-called no-frills campus, and that Pennsylvania is considering one.

While no-frills plans are currently geared to the development of new campuses, it may also be possible for some established institutions to evolve in this direction. Institutions would have to phase in the new approach over time — by outsourcing certain spaces, like fitness centers; by leasing athletics and recreation facilities to their communities; and by taking other steps.

I am not advocating that every campus go in this direction, but there could be one or two such institutions in every major population center where issues of access and cost are most pronounced. The learning experiences that no-frills campuses could provide might not be as rich, but they may be the only way that some students can afford an education — and the only way that some institutions can deal with their ever-deepening financial problems. —Sal Rinella

Sal Rinella, February’s Buildings & Grounds guest blogger, is president of the Society for College and University Planning. He is also a consultant with the strategic-planning firm Stratus and is former president of Austin Peay State University. You can read his previous posts here, here, and here.

Interested in becoming a guest blogger yourself? Let us know.