Recently, Penn State spent $70,000 on a study performed by an outside organization that found Penn State students wanted more recreational space.

In case you didn't get that the first time, Penn State spent $70,000 to have someone else ask students if they wanted more leisure space.

The study, done by Brailsford & Dunlavey in the fall, proposed improvements such as building more space for working out, adding more lap pools and connecting the White Building to the HUB-Robeson Center.

And while it's admirable that Penn State is concerned about the welfare of its students outside of the classroom, was spending $70,000 to find that out really necessary?

Director of Unions and Student Activities Stan Latta said the university may not have the resources to meet the suggestions.

Perhaps if Penn State hadn't spent so much money on the study, more funding could have been put directly into bettering and increasing the recreational space. Why did this study cost so much money, especially when it seems as though an online poll, much like the one last year to vote for the creation of UPUA, would have been perfectly suitable?

Despite the recent renovations to Rec Hall, gyms are still fairly crowded during most of the day.

In the winter, finding a time slot free to run on the track in Rec Hall when there isn't a class already using it is a difficult task.

Three indoor swimming facilities hardly seems adequate when you consider two of the pools are used by the Penn State swimming and diving teams.

It's no surprise that physical activity has a number of benefits including both physical and mental health. It's important that university officials have recognized that areas for recreation are important for the students and should be a top priority. Last fall, more than 100 intramural flag football teams had to be turned away due to lack of space.

Although university officials say they are making an effort to increase the supply to meet the demand, the university didn't need to spend thousands of dollars to figure out students wanted more space.

Latta said the study was funded by the university's general fund, not student fees, and it is reported that other schools in the Big Ten have spent more than $100,000 researching recreational space, but regardless of where the money came from, why spend it?

Couldn't a class have conducted this research for free, making it more than just a study but a learning experience for the students?

Making health facitilities and recreational space available to all students is a good thing and will improve life for many students at Penn State. But spending $70,000 for someone else to tell them that Penn State students need more room to run seems extravagant.

Officials needed only to look at the faces of people waiting in long lines at the gyms to get their answer.