Out of all the things UK could have spent its money on, it chose signs. Not street signs or building signs, which would seem logical, but massive, expensive signs apparently needed to direct students to buildings on this huge campus.

Yes, this is a big campus, and some buildings can be extremely hard to find, even on a map, but were all these signs really necessary? A map or even a brief campus tour would have served the exact purpose and cost a lot less.

According to Thursday’s Kernel, the signs posted around campus are only the beginning. This is the first of three phases, with the first phase costing an estimated $250,000.

However, Bob Wiseman, the vice president for facilities, said the roughly $6,000 to $7,000 spent per sign is only “a little bit,” but this “little bit” could have paid for a lot at UK.

This campus, which has been here since 1865, is a little out­­­dated. It is not that every building is falling apart, but some are leaky, rusty and in desperate need of some attention. Not to mention there are enormous holes in the streets, an extreme shortage of parking and ever-increasing tuition rates.

Wiseman said in the article the allocation of the funds happened last fall before the budget cuts sank in, and the next two phases were already contracted out, but he did not give an estimate on how much the next two phases would cost.

The logical thing would have been to wait and see how well the first phase went before taking out the checkbook to pay for the next two phases that have not even began.

If the next two phases cost anywhere near what the first phase cost, UK will have successfully spent $750,000 on signs that simply contain arrows and building names.

Money doesn’t grow on trees, especially in a time when university funds are tight. The $250,000 could have been spent many ways, but on directional signs? Really? The university has yet to see much response, seeing as the signs are still in protective wrapping for fear of getting damaged. What good are they doing?

Why spend that much on something that is, without a doubt, going to get damaged from the environment or inevitably be vandalized. The school could have bought some wood, a hammer and a nail and made the signs themselves. They may not be as pretty, but they sure would have cost a lot less.

The sad part is that even the UK students quoted in Thursday’s Kernel did not see a need for them. They were probably thinking about all the other things that UK could have spent that money on, like more funding for scholarships or possibly a lower tuition raise next year.

The administration could have bought the following with $250,000:

• 2.5 million packages of ramen noodles (10 cents each)

• 31 yearly undergraduate in-state tuitions ($8,000 each)

• 250,000 cheeseburgers from McDonalds ($1 each)

• Eight brand new cars ($30,000 each)

• 250 Apple Macbooks ($1,000 each)

• Six professor salaries ($41,000 each)

• 4,166 college textbooks ($60 each)

And it could have, almost, paid for President Todd’s salary.

Going green is an important concept, but cutting out maps only to spend $250,000 on directional signs, is ridiculous. Students, expect a tuition raise next year. We’ve got pretty, new signs to pay for.