The Dean’s Donation Fund, a yearly fund from Smith Engineering provided to Queen’s engineering groups, is facing criticism as design teams speak out against apparent underfunding.
According to an anonymous source that’s involved in design teams at Queen’s, multiple teams received under half of the funds they’ve requested. The source provided data that alleged aQuatonomous received $8,700 despite requesting $18,000, that Queen’s Rocket Engineering Team (QRET) received $23,200 despite requesting $53,500 and being granted $35,000 the year prior, and Aerospace received $24,600 despite asking for $75,000.
The Journal reached out to the aforementioned teams to confirm the numbers, but didn’t receive a response relating to their validity.
The anonymous source also provided data on Qlean and Queen’s Space Engineering Team (QSET). Qlean co-captain Ahnaaf Khan, Sci ’27, confirmed the numbers shared were accurate in an interview with The Journal, claiming they received $4,300 despite requesting $10,000. QSET Rover Captain, Ilse Kloosterman, Sci ’25, also confirmed the numbers shared were accurate in an interview, explaining QSET requested $54,000 but only received $23,000.
Both Khan and Kloosterman explained they’ve heard about cuts across many of the teams this year, adding how this lack of funding could present barriers in their own respective teams. Kloosterman explained that it has even presented difficulties returning to a competition that their rover team has been participating in since 2016.
“We’re really trying now to get everything done in time for our submission to the competition to get in, but definitely with the finances, it’s taken us a lot longer to figure out what we’re actually capable of,” Kloosterman said. “We had [also] been considering looking at launch contracts for a satellite to get it into space, but we just know we won’t have the funding to do that ourselves now.”
Khan explained that while the team is still re-budgeting and figuring out what they need to change, they had a goal of attempting to capture one kilogram of carbon dioxide—a goal which now has to be scrapped.
He later added that this feels like a larger issue within Queen’s, explaining that the University has a strong and well-organized Engineering Society with the most design teams out of any University in Canada, but instead of it being celebrated, “it’s kind of treated as a burden or a weakness.”
“We don’t really celebrate it unless it’s for a tour or something. We flaunt it only when it’s actually convenient, but we don’t actually put in the money or the time or the effort to actually support it,” Khan said. “That’s kind of what it feels like from the administration.”
Both captains repeated that the prevailing sentiment within design teams is that they would get roughly 80 per cent of the funding they requested, whereas most teams this year only received between 30 and 50 per cent.
Kloosterman explained that in previous years, there were two deans’ donations a year. However, starting last year, they changed it to only one donation a year, which took a hit to their funding.
“When there were two of them, we would also get the same amount [that we got this year] for the fall, but then there would be another one in the winter. So, we would, historically, always get 80 per cent of what we asked for.”
The Journal contacted Smith Engineering to inquire about various claims, including the previous Dean’s Donation Fund process and if it was changed, but didn’t receive a response specifically on whether it was changed and why.
However, in its statement, Smith Engineering did explain that total annual requests for the Dean’s Donation Fund have ranged from $245,000 to $650,000, with the faculty allocating, on average, $225,000 to support the fund.
“The total amount available for distribution each year is informed by previous years’ allocations and interest earned on the fund, rather than a predetermined annual cap. Funding decisions are made through a review process that considers the quality of each proposal, a team’s history of requests to the fund, alignment with Smith Engineering priorities—such as safety, equity, diversity, inclusion and Indigenization (EDII), and reimagining engineering education—and demonstrated financial need,” Smith Engineering wrote.
In its statement, Smith Engineering also encouraged design teams to “pursue funding from multiple sources,” adding that they hold workshops to assist teams with securing funding. In response, both Khan and Kloosterman explained that they’ve found it difficult to secure funding, with Kloosterman explaining they’ve received sponsorships in the past, but the money often falls through, explaining the donation is their only source of secure funding.
The faculty also added that the fund supports outreach programs, conferences, clubs, and more, explaining that the “number and diversity of requests each year directly affect the funding available to individual projects.”
Both captains called for greater transparency in the donation process, with Smith Engineering explaining in its statement that students with feedback are encouraged to contact the faculty’s Director of Finance and Reporting, Renee Tulk, adding “the Faculty welcomes continued input to ensure the fund best supports student learning and engagement.”
“The Faculty is committed to transparency and continuous improvement and has revised the Dean’s Donation Fund process in response to student feedback,” Smith Engineering wrote.
Tags
Dean's Donation, Design Teams, funding, Kevin deluzio, Smith Engineering
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.