Part 2 – Who Gets to Define “Applicable”?
The Filter Behind the Word
In admissions, the word ‘applicable’ seems neutral — a fair and objective term. But I learned how quietly it functions as a filter, one that holds power more than clarity.
Over two years and multiple applications, I repeatedly met this word: CE in 2023 (2/5), ICE in 2025 (2/10), and CE again in 2025 (4/5 after 35 more ECTS). The core of who I was never changed—only how closely my studies resembled the expected form. My motivations, projects, and aligned courses weren’t counted. Applicability, then, is not a reflection of capacity or readiness.
It is a code word for conformity — a sorting mechanism that often fails to recognise the richness of lived experience or self-directed learning. What begins as policy becomes personal when the gate never opens for those who learn outside traditional tracks.
When “Applicability” Means Discipline, Not Depth
What counts as applicable is rarely about depth, insight, or meaningful contribution. Instead, it’s about whether your past studies can be neatly boxed into a familiar discipline.
I hold a Bachelor’s in Business, focused on multilingual communication and cultural management — yet it was repeatedly dismissed as irrelevant. My lived multilingualism, my community mentoring, my research on intercultural transitions? All ignored. And yet, these same programmes teach that meaningful knowledge often comes from the intersections of life, language, and lived experience.
The irony is sharp: I was embodying what they claimed to teach, but I was excluded because my degree label didn’t match. Applicability should not mean alignment to tradition but to purpose, readiness, and the learner’s vision of contribution..
Ahmed and Santos: Whose Knowledge Is Valued?
As part of my Open University studies, I engaged deeply with authors like Sara Ahmed and Boaventura de Sousa Santos — scholars whose work critiques institutional comfort and knowledge hierarchies.
Ahmed discusses how institutions use polite procedures to mask violence, and Santos asks us to respect ‘epistemologies of the South.’ These are not just readings I enjoyed—they shaped my academic path.
My ‘applicability’ was scored based on labels, not reflection. Yet, none of it was considered. If I can be taught to read these authors but not be evaluated in their spirit, the system has performed inclusion, but not practised it.
As Ahmed says, ‘The institution is not a safe space. It is not designed to be one.’ But it can be transformed — if it’s willing to be honest about what it protects and whom it excludes.
The Ethical Cost of Fixed Criteria
Scoring rubrics are supposed to create fairness. But when they are used to silence, they become tools of exclusion. In both CE and ICE, my efforts — including 40 ECTS of Master-level study, public reflection pieces, and future thesis outlines — were not reviewed because my ‘applicability’ score was too low. The rest of the application was never opened.
This is not an applicant failure. It is a system that has chosen efficiency over equity. In theory, justice-oriented programmes should celebrate layered experience. In practice, they often streamline complexity into checklists. When procedure becomes a shield against listening, education loses its integrity.
If universities are serious about access, they must begin by reading, not just scanning. Otherwise, we are not assessing readiness. We are protecting sameness!
Conclusion: What If We’re Measuring the Wrong Things?
We live in a time where universities claim to champion equity, interdisciplinarity, and transformation. Yet they continue to assess learners based on fixed templates of the past. What if we’ve misunderstood what’s worth measuring? What if motivation, lived experience, and self-designed learning paths are not exceptions, but essentials?
“My application wasn’t weak. It was different. If a difference cannot be seen, the system will be blind, not neutral.” — Hoa Rompasaari
We must stop pretending that fairness means uniformity. A truly future-facing university must be brave enough to value new ways of knowing, even if it makes old metrics uncomfortable. Otherwise, we remain locked in what Paulo Freire called the ‘banking model’ of education, where students are valued only by what they deposit, not by what they dare to question.
🪞 To the Reader — and to Myself
To the reader
If you are involved in selection,
I invite you to go beyond the checklist.
Ask what story the learner brings,
not just what box their past fits into.
To the learner: Your journey is not less valuable because it doesn’t match tradition. In fact, it may be more useful.
And to myself:
You chose the more challenging path.
You studied without a guarantee.
You reflected without reward.
You showed up not to prove yourself,
but to align with your deeper purpose.
That is the most valid form of readiness.
And whether or not the gate opened, you built your foundation, which can never be unbuilt. The future you are creating is already in motion.
Let the right doors open at the right time.
Let the wrong ones remain closed with grace.
And let the path ahead be walked with clarity, courage, and calm.
🔍 References
Ahmed, Sara. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Duke University Press. Key concept: “Institutional smoothness,” hidden gatekeeping, citational politics.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. Routledge. Key concept: Valuing marginalized knowledge systems and confronting colonial academic frameworks.
Marginson, Simon. (2006). “Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education.” Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39. Discusses how standardization and metrics impact international learners.
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1986). “The forms of capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Highlights how academic credentials function as cultural capital that often excludes nontraditional learners.
Peters, Michael A. (2005). “The new prudentialism in education: Actuarial rationality and the entrepreneurial self.” Educational Theory, 55(2), 123–137. Discusses how bureaucratic logics in education prioritize conformity over critical reflection.
University of Helsinki Admissions Criteria
Master’s Programme in Intercultural Encounters (ICE) & Changing Education (CE), 2025 Intake
https://www.helsinki.fi/en/admissions-and-education/apply-bachelors-and-masters-programmes