Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=csje20
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csje20
University graduates’ perceptions of institutional
hierarchies. The case of Finnish Master’s degree in
business administration and economics
Ulpukka Isopahkala-Bouret, Sonja Kosunen & Nina Haltia
To cite this article: Ulpukka Isopahkala-Bouret, Sonja Kosunen & Nina Haltia (06 Nov 2023):
University graduates’ perceptions of institutional hierarchies. The case of Finnish Master’s
degree in business administration and economics, Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research, DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2023.2266706
To link to this article:  https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2023.2266706
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 06 Nov 2023.
Submit your article to this journal 
Article views: 70
View related articles 
View Crossmark data
University graduates’ perceptions of institutional hierarchies. The
case of Finnish Master’s degree in business administration and
economics
Ulpukka Isopahkala-Bouret a, Sonja Kosunen b and Nina Haltia a
aCenter for Research on Lifelong Learning and Education (CELE), Faculty of Education, University of Turku, Turku,
Finland; bSocial Studies in Urban Education (SURE)-Research Unit, School of Educational Sciences and Psychology,
University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
ABSTRACT
In the process of higher education choice, the prospective students
compare and organise universities into a preference order, which
indicates status hierarchies among institutions. In this study, the aim is
to investigate how (and based on what) recent business graduates
construct institutional hierarchies in the national higher education
landscape in Finland. Moreover, we ask how the geographical location
of universities contributes to such hierarchies. Based on 43 interviews
with Master’s degree graduates from four universities and their satellite
campuses, we argue that the long distances between universities in a
geographically large country eventually contest the relevance of status
comparisons between universities, when it actually comes to making a
choice. This does not indicate, however, that institutional hierarchies
would not exist nor be of relevance. Our findings reveal that hierarchy
is produced through the perceived selectivity of admissions, future
exchange value of education, and competitiveness/inclusiveness of
student culture.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 9 August 2022
Accepted 25 September
2023
KEYWORDS
Student choice; institutional
hierarchy; reputation;
prestige; geographies of
higher education; university
1 Introduction
This study explores the interconnectedness of student choice, universities’ reputation, and geo-
graphical location in the Nordic context, particularly in Finland. Institutional status competition,
increasing hierarchies, and rankings are known to be related to social stratification and concen-
tration of resources in many contexts (Elken et al., 2017; Pusser & Marginson, 2013). As we and
our colleagues (Isopahkala-Bouret et al., 2018) have argued in an earlier Nordic review, it is increas-
ingly important to address student choice in terms of who gains access to which institutions and by
which means. In the process of higher education (HE) choice, the prospective students compare and
organise universities into a preference order, which indicates status hierarchies among institutions.
In this study, we use the term “institutional hierarchy” to refer to the positioning of different
universities within a hierarchical order. The Nordic HE landscape has have relatively low insti-
tutional hierarchies thus far. Broad egalitarian values, such as equal access to HE and democratic
leadership, have counterbalanced market competition and university rankings (Elken et al.,
2016). However, along with global competition, Nordic countries have introduced new policy
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an OpenAccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this
article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
CONTACT Ulpukka Isopahkala-Bouret ulpukka.isopahkala-bouret@utu.fi Assistentinkatu 5, 20014 University of Turku,
Turku, Finland
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2023.2266706
devices to organise a competition among national universities and promote the global competitive-
ness of the Nordic region (see Kettunen et al., 2022). For example, smaller national higher education
institutions (HEIs) have been merged to build larger “world-class” universities that can enhance
national competitiveness in the global economy (Aula et al., 2015). Moreover, Finland has reformed
its national student admission policies and, as a consequence, has better indicators for comparing
student admissions and selectivity of different universities. However, not much is known about the
perceptions of students and alumni on the relative social status of the national universities.
In the Nordic countries, student choice has been motivated greatly by the location of different uni-
versities—where can the students study their preferred discipline, and where do they want to (and can
afford to) live (Elken et al., 2017)? We argue that the rather long distances between universities in a
geographically large country, such as Finland, eventually contest the relevance of status comparisons
between universities, when it actually comes to making a choice and participating in the admission.
Other studies in the field have demonstrated, how the proximity of one’s home is a substantial ques-
tion when it comes to making a choice of HE (see e.g. Ball et al., 2002; Hinton, 2011; Saari et al., 2016).
Therefore, it is important to emphasise how student choice is interrelated with geographical inequal-
ities of provision (Junkkari & Nevala, 2021; Kosunen et al., 2022; Saari et al., 2016).
In this study, the aim is to investigate how (and based on what) recent university graduates con-
struct institutional hierarchies in the national landscape of HE choice. In addition, we ask how the
geographical location of universities contributes to such hierarchies. In this analysis, in order to
avoid the differences caused by the differentiated status of different disciplines we focus on only
one of the most competitive ones: Business Administration and Economics. We interviewed 43
Master’s degree graduates from four Finnish universities and their satellite campuses. Universities
were located in the capital area and cities in western and eastern Finland. The findings of our the-
matic analysis give a good overview of how business graduates reason about university choice and
what kinds of institutional differences matter to them. The findings draw attention to how student
choices are reasoned in conjunction with and against different aspects of status hierarchies.
2 Student choice and university reputation
Student choice is often influenced by the perceived reputation of different universities (Ma, 2022).
Agnès van Zanten (2009) has described how analysing student choice and “education markets” can
be done either through analysing the objective provision of education or through the applicants’
perception of the local educational provision when choosing. The critical studies focusing on the
provision of HEIs in a certain area or region, have also addressed the social distribution of people
living in different areas from urban to rural, from advantaged to disadvantaged (Hinton, 2011).
The perceived reputation and prestige of a university is a subjective construction and it does not
necessarily equate with the actual quality and performance indicators (Ma, 2022). Prior research has
analysed how “university reputation” (Ma, 2022), “university image” (Wilkins & Huisman, 2015),
or “university brand” (Aula et al., 2015; Myers & Bhopal, 2021) is a way of differentiating a particu-
lar institution and constructing students’ supportive attitude and commitment in the competitive
HE marketplace. Authors have explained how academic prestige, league tables, location, and good
employability prospects, among other things, increase the likelihood for students to apply for a par-
ticular university. For example, in the competitive field of business schools, high-ranking placement
or access to the global rankings in the first place, are transferable to the (prospective) students’
favourable judgements of a school’s status and reputation (Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2018).
Furthermore, Basil Bernstein’s (1977) concepts of instrumental and expressive orders have been
applied in student choice research to analyse the construction of reputational status of educational
institutions (e.g. Kosunen, 2014; Raveaud & van Zanten, 2007), although this research has not con-
sidered HE in particular. “Instrumental order” refers to institutional achievement and performance;
moreover, it includes the perceived future exchange value of education (Kosunen, 2014; van Zanten,
2009). Global rankings and accreditations can be seen as forming elements in the instrumental
2 U. ISOPAHKALA-BOURET ET AL.
social order (for specific examples from business and management education, see: Alajoutsijärvi
et al., 2018; Wedlin, 2010). More closely as features of the instrumental order, universities can
differentiate in terms of their positioning in the global and national league tables, selectivity of stu-
dent admissions, and the quality of their educational provision.
The “expressive order” in Bernstein’s (1977) original definition consists of conduct, character,
and manner. Kosunen (2014) used the concept to analyse the extent to which specific institutions
produce a certain type of habitus (Bourdieu, 1998), that is, specific lifestyle, values, taste, and expec-
tations associated with a particular social group. The idea of the expressive order of an institution
helps us understand why students sometimes organise universities in a different, and even oppos-
ing, preference order. The practical reasoning of the prospective students on how they will organize
their everyday life during studies, as well as the questions related to the geographies of education,
can override the need of choosing the most prestigious university. This does not indicate, however,
that those status hierarchies would not exist nor be of relevance.
Moreover, the concept of expressive order explains the interplay of institutional and individual
habitus that results in experiences of “fitting in” or “standing out” in relation to the institutional
habitus of different universities (Ball et al., 2002; Reay et al., 2010). We know that the aspirations
the students’ have are intersectionally connected to their class background, ethnicity, and gender,
for instance (Ball et al., 2002). The choices the prospective students conduct may be a combination
of the two: socially based aspirations and practical reasoning of what is feasible. Eventually, social
background matters also in a choice of not choosing the most highly ranked and accessible univer-
sity, for example, due to its prestigious reputation and the fear of oneself possibly standing out (see
Ball et al., 2002). Moreover, critical scholars, such as Myers and Bhopal (2021), have looked at uni-
versity “brands” and reputation as forms of identity regulation. Through the processes of socialisa-
tion, the privileged status of an institution aligns with individual habitus in and after HE.
The sociological perspectives suggest that institutional hierarchies are self-perpetuating. The
universities with high status attract “good” students who are in turn more attractive to employers
who therefore recruit from these institutions and reinforce their positional advantage (Croxford &
Raffe, 2015; Pusser & Marginson, 2013). As an example, in the field of business administration and
economics, the elite universities occupy the highest positions in a relatively permanent rank order;
whereas, new business schools can hardly challenge the status quo (Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2018). These
ranking orders have a symbolic value; they signify that the university is part of a specific group of
institutions (Elken et al., 2016; Wedlin, 2010).
Global university rankings are observed to reinforce pre-existing institutional hierarchies in the
Nordic countries. The oldest national universities perceived themselves as “standard setters” in the
Nordic context (Elken et al., 2016; Kettunen et al., 2022; see also: Elken et al., 2017). These univer-
sities have made space for rankings on their own webpages and implemented strategic measures in
response to the global ranking, and a few institutions have made explicit reference to rankings in
their strategic plans (Elken et al., 2016). The “middle-ranked” universities have focused their com-
parisons on a specific subgroup of relevant universities, with specific levels of ambition and insti-
tutional profiles (Elken et al., 2017). For example, regarding global rankings in the field of business
administration and economics, the Finnish Aalto University School of Business is a national leader
and is among the top four Nordic business schools (e.g., Kettunen et al., 2022). Other Finnish
business schools and business faculties have not been highly ranked globally.
Global rankings are not the only way to provide comparable data for organising the competition
and reinforcing status hierarchies within national HE systems. For example, in Finland, new policy
devices that enable national HEIs to be ranked against one another include the government’s new
funding model and, in terms of student choice, the pooled admissions and extended use of standar-
dised matriculation exam scores in student selection. A joint internet-based application system
(opintopolku.fi) was introduced in 2014 with uniform national regulations and handling of pooled
admissions for all HEIs. Moreover, the admission reform in 2020 reduced the importance of
entrance examinations and gave more weight to the results of upper secondary schooling and
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 3
the results of the matriculation exam. Nowadays, national universities within one major can be
informally ranked using the explicit variance in the entrance thresholds (i.e. the lowest matricula-
tion examination results and the entrance examination results needed for admittance).1
As discussed earlier, the geographies of HE play their role both nationally and internationally
when students are choosing their locations for attending HE (Hinton, 2011) and while attending
it (Clayton et al., 2009). Moreover, Hazelkorn (2017) has argued that global university rankings
have a geopolitical influence, as not only specific universities but also specific regions are being pro-
moted based on a specific ranking. The large distances between university cities in Finland coupled
with relatively low institutional stratification and low relevance of university rankings (Elken et al.,
2016) require a further qualitative inquiry, which we address in this article.
3 Research context and methodology
In Finland, the expansion of HE has been guided by the egalitarian principles of fair access and
regional equality. The HE system consists of an academic sector (13 research universities) and a
professionally orientated HE sector (22 universities of applied sciences, UAS). Both sectors offer
bachelor’s and master’s level programmes in business, but the programmes differ in form, content
and orientation. As a difference, admission to research university is granted straight to a master’s
degree programmes, and most students complete a master’s degree; whereas, students at UAS typi-
cally graduate with a bachelor degree. Moreover, the employability prospects of business graduates
are somewhat stratified along the sectoral line. We have compared Finnish university and UAS sec-
tors elsewhere (e.g., Isopahkala-Bouret et al., 2021) and our focus in this article is particularly on the
institutional hierarchies among research universities.
In our empirical case study, we focus on degree programmes in “Business administration and
economics” that are offered in 10 out of 13 Finnish universities. The Finnish business schools
units have different competitive profiles and background (Kettunen et al., 2022). Four of these
units have history as old business schools, established in the beginning and middle of the last cen-
tury, although all but one have since been merged into larger, multidisciplinary universities. Aalto
Business School, located in the capital region, and Turku School of Economics are the oldest to offer
Finnish-speaking programmes. Two other “old” institutions, the Hanken School of Business and
Åbo Akademi, offer degrees in Swedish. Vaasa’s business school started in 1966 during the expan-
sion of regional universities. In the 1990s and 2000s, the number of business students grew again as
other regional universities and satellite campuses (Joensuu, Jyväskylä, Kuopio, Lappeenranta/LUT,
Oulu, Pori, and Tampere) established their own business faculties. There are no formal university
rankings at the national level; however, as Alajoutsijärvi et al. (2018) have argued, a relatively strong
implicit pecking order exists depending on the age, size, and location of business schools.
From the socio-spatial point of view of the provision of Finnish business education, we observed
that the universities are located apart from one another at distances of several hundred kilometres.
Eight out of 18 Finnish provinces offer university programmes in business administration and
economics. According to Saari et al. (2016, p. 36), most applicants to business studies in 2015
came from the metropolitan area in Southern Finland (Uusimaa province) and from the Turku
region in western Finland (Varsinais-Suomi province). Finland is a sparsely populated country,
and most Finns live in the south and southwest of the country. In these two provinces, the majority
of applicants targeted their own well-ranked business schools. The lowest number of applicants to
business studies came from provinces where there were no regional universities offering degrees in
business administration and economics (Saari et al., 2016). Further, some people applied from one
region to another, even if the same programme was provided in their own province, to maximise
their opportunities to get a study place at a university (Saari et al., 2016).
1Up until the late 2010s, different universities had separate entrance examinations. Thus, the entrance thresholds were not com-
parable and could not be used as devices for the relative ranking of universities.
4 U. ISOPAHKALA-BOURET ET AL.
The analysis developed in this study was based on 43 graduate interviews that we conducted as
part of a bigger research project in 2019.2 We involved business graduates from four Finnish
business school units and their satellite campuses: the University of Turku (Turku and Pori cam-
puses), the University of Vaasa, the University of Eastern Finland (Joensuu and Kuopio campuses),
and Aalto University (one interview from the Mikkeli campus). The interviews lasted approxi-
mately one to two hours. The interview schedule was formulated around the sequences of edu-
cational and professional trajectories. In the analysis, we focused particularly on the content in
which the interviewees discussed their university choices and study experiences.
The interviewees represented a wide variety of student profiles. The majority of them had gradu-
ated with a master’s degree within one year from the interview, and a few were still finalising their
master’s studies. About half of the interviewees had studied at the university nearest to their home
(when applying) and others had moved to another city. Of the interviewees, 20 were female and 23
were male. The interviewees ranged in age from 22 to 51 years. One-third were “mature students”,
meaning 30 years and older at the time of graduation. The younger graduates had mainly entered
university through the main admission route. The mature students had often used alternative
entrance routes to university, such as “open university gateway” or “master’s programme gateway”.3
In practice, the interview data were analysed by using data-driven thematic coding. We focused
on how graduates described different universities and positioned them in comparison to one
another. Bernstein’s (1977) theoretical concepts of instrumental and expressive orders helped us
at the beginning of the analysis to draw attention to the multiple, and even contradictory, aspects
of perceived institutional hierarchies (see also: Kosunen, 2014). Moreover, we coded inductively all
the meanings associated with the locations of different universities.
4 The emerging stratification between the “top” business schools and the regional
institutions
In most of the interviews, the business graduates reflected on their student choices, an accomplish-
ment of a Master’s degree, and the study experiences provided by their alma mater with great sat-
isfaction. However, we found that the institutional profiles, selectivity, employability prospects, and
partially the student culture of different universities constructed hierarchical differences within Fin-
nish HE.
4.1 Institutional profiles in the field of Finnish business education
Based on our graduate interviews, at the upper edge of the reputational status hierarchy among Fin-
nish business schools, there were two institutions: the Aalto University School of Business and the
Turku School of Economics. The Hanken School of Economics was also recognised as having a high
status, but most interviewees did not mention it because it is a Swedish-speaking business school
and therefore targets a specific student population in Finland. The high-status business schools
had an established history and culture, which were constitutive elements of the instrumental
order, as Thomas (pseudonym) emphasised in the following:
2This study is part of the larger project: Higher education graduates’ employability and social positioning in the labour market,
funded by the Academy of Finland (2018–2022). The purpose of the research project was to investigate graduate employability
and social positioning in early career trajectories. Altogether, we conducted 77 graduate interviews in 2019 and 44 follow-up
interviews in 2020 with business graduates from Finnish universities and universities of applied sciences (UAS). In this study, we
excluded UAS graduates and did not use follow-up interviews. The data include one pilot interview from 2017. Ethical approval
for the study was obtained from the Committee on Research Ethics of University of Eastern Finland.
3The open university gateway means that after completing a certain number of study credits with sufficient grades in open uni-
versity education, a student may apply for a study place in a degree programme. The Master’s programme gateway means that
those students who have originally pursued a bachelor’s degree in UAS or university can apply and be selected directly to a
master’s programme.
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 5
We have those top business schools, which I feel are these two [Aalto and Turku] and Hanken. That these
really have a higher status than the others… they are old schools… the history and culture have, like, devel-
oped over a longer period. (Thomas, M, 29, Joensuu)
From the perspective of the quality of teaching, which was an alternative aspect of instrumental
order, regional universities could be easily positioned as equal to leading institutions: “I think that
the University of Eastern Finland and Aalto University are excellent examples of places where multi-
form learning is possible” (Moona, F, 51, Pori). Some regional universities put special emphasis on
recruiting good professors and providing high-quality programmes on the most popular major
subjects, such as accounting and finance, making prospective students, such as Otto (25, M, Kuo-
pio), apply primarily to regional universities far from home: “I’ve heard a lot of good things about
this late professor and I was lucky to get access to his teaching”. In addition, some universities
wanted to differentiate themselves by developing specific master’s programmes that targeted
working adults: “The contents were like they could be directly applied [to my work]. So, of the
study places I checked, it felt like it resonated the best with my work experience” (Konsta, M, 43,
Joensuu).
However, regarding the scale and availability of resources, Aalto University was perceived as
clearly having the best provision of choice. In addition, Aalto’s location in the capital area allowed
students to accomplish a variety of minor subjects in collaboration with the University of Helsinki,
which is the oldest and most prestigious national university in Finland.
The best thing is maybe the fact that you can really create a study portfolio that looks like what you want. This
must sound like a terrible Aalto promotion, but it’s true that Aalto is offering really a lot of alternative
[courses]. (Sofia, F, 22, Aalto)
Moreover, the good reputation of the leading universities was perceived as being based on their
highly demanding curriculum and teaching, and an international orientation (e.g. the provision of
language courses). For example, at Turku School of Economics, students needed to put great effort
into accomplishing the coursework and getting good grades, as Tina explained:
If you think about the reputations of business schools, Turku has a really good one. You really need to do
things here when compared to… I shouldn’t say things like this, but from what I’ve heard from friends
and stories, places like Vaasa let people off so easily. It feels unfair that students from both universities get
master’s degrees but based on what merit or something like that. And Turku is the most demanding, with
the languages you need to study out of all of Finland’s business schools. (Tina, F, 28, Turku)
4.2. Selectivity of student admissions
Student selection was an essential part of the instrumental order of institutions. The order of pre-
ference in which applicants ranked the universities indicates reputational status hierarchies. The
leading business schools were often the first choice among applicants; however, they were also
the most challenging to gain admission. Regarding the Finnish educational statistics (www.vipu-
nen.fi), the largest number of primary applicants was in Aalto (at 3444 in 2021, see Table 1).
Thus, out of all applicants who targeted the Aalto University School of Business, 85 per cent
have indicated that this university is their number one choice. The absolute largest number of all
applicants was also attracted by Aalto University and it holds the largest number of study places
(338 new study places in 2021), followed by the University of Turku (326, both Turku and Pori cam-
puses) and Vaasa (270). In other business programmes, student intake varies from 70 to 170.
For example, Mette and Sofia had both selected Aalto as their primary choice. They mentioned
the central location and the high quality of education, indicated by the leading rank status, as jus-
tifications for their choice:
Of course, many people say that Aalto University is the most esteemed university and [laughs], sorry to other
localities, but that’s what people say! (Mette, F, 26, Aalto)
6 U. ISOPAHKALA-BOURET ET AL.
[Aalto University was my number one choice]. Absolutely. Turku was maybe another one that I considered,
but it was still pretty clear that Aalto is the place. It simply had, for starters, the location as one thing, but more
than that was the quality I had learned about. I had, of course, looked into it a lot myself and also heard from
people I know.… at upper secondary school, they have these information events… From those I had heard
about it and formed a picture that Aalto University is clearly the place. (Sofia, F, 22, Aalto)
Sofia exemplifies how student choice is informed by reputational knowledge coming from friends,
alumni, and official promotions provided to upper secondary schools. Aalto University is located in
the capital area, where the highest number of Finnish upper secondary schools are, and they can
easily reach a high number of prospective students in their recruitment.
Among the regional universities and satellite campuses whose graduates we interviewed in our
study, only approximately one-fifth of the applicants selected these universities as their number one
target university (see Table 1). For example, Samuel (M, 26, Kuopio), who was very aware of uni-
versity ranking, said that his study place at the regional university was not the first option for many:
“So, most of us were people who had come from somewhere else and had also primarily applied
somewhere else but didn’t get in.” Katriina recognised the same phenomenon:
And then there were people who had Joensuu as their tenth option but couldn’t get to any others. So, this was
the only one [they got accepted]. And you sometimes heard talk like that, and I always wondered as I was so
proud of myself to have got at least here, so, it’s kind of mean to say this, but that someone who would’ve
wanted to get in didn’t because there are people who complain that it was their tenth option, that they
would’ve prefer to gone to [the leading business school] or others. (Katariina, F, 29, Joensuu)
Katariina knew that many of her fellow students would have preferred the “top” business school
in the capital and that the regional university was their “last option”. She criticised such a negative
Table 1. Applicants, admission rates and exam thresholds in 2021 in the field of business administration and economics, Finnish-
speaking study programmes (Education Statistics Finland; www.vipunen.fi).
First choice
among
applicants
Applicants
in total
Study
places
Admission rate
(interpret with
caution4)
Thresholds for
certification-based
admissions5
Admission
thresholds for
university entrance
exam6
Aalto University 3 444 5 712 338 5,90% 117 26,45
University of Eastern
Finland, Joensuu
campus
144 1470 70 4,80% 94,2 20,47
University of Eastern
Finland, Kuopio
campus
228 1779 70 3,90% 95,7 21,94
University of
Jyväskylä
327 2808 125 4,50% 101,6 22,94
Lappeenranta-Lahti
University of
Technology, LUT
315 2916 140 4,80% 96,1 22,41
University of Oulu 600 2775 170 6,10% 97,7 20,96
University of
Tampere
1377 5124 165 3,20% 109,6 24,49
University if Turku,
Turku campus
1395 5721 260 4,54% 109 24,92
University if Turku,
Pori campus
99 1611 66 4,10% 95 20,96
University of Vaasa 324 4242 270 6,40% 95,9 21,45
4The admission rate is based on the total number of applicants, meaning students who have selected a university by order of
preference as one up to six which they would like to match. However, if applicant get accepted by one of their top choices, they
are not in the de facto applicant pool for the following universities anymore (see: Abrams, 2021).
5In certificate-based admissions, the applicants’ matriculation examination certificates are scored, and applicants who have
received the highest certificate scores are admitted (https://yliopistovalinnat.fi/en/scoring-in-certificate-based-admissions-in-
2023-2025).
6About half of the students are admitted based on the discipline-specific entrance exams.
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 7
discourse, as she was very proud to be a student at her own university. However, her choice of words
“to have got at least here” (the emphasis added) revealed that she would not have had other realistic
admission options apart from this university.
The ranking of Finnish institutions in terms of the selectivity of student admissions was quite
explicit for the interviewees, and it has been an important factor in the choice of their study
place. Often, they had been strategic in sorting out different options by evaluating their own chances
of gaining access to specific institutions. The student admission thresholds have very small differ-
ences, but they can make a big difference, as the competition for study places is very high in all Fin-
nish universities (Isopahkala-Bouret, 2019). In terms of the point average thresholds required for
admission (Table 1), with matriculation examination results, the highest points were required by
Aalto (117); similarly, the highest entrance examination thresholds were set by Aalto (26,45).
The status of Aalto University as the most selective business school was well recognised by our
interviewees: “Business studies at Aalto University, the most challenging in Finland based purely
on, like, the exam grades required to get in” (Sofia, F, 22, Aalto).
In the following extract, Samuel makes a statement about the ranking orders of the business
schools based on how difficult it is to gain access to these institutions via entry exams.
It’s number one. For [Aalto], it is basically like you make two careless mistakes in the exam, and you’re out.
Turku and Tampere are side by side next, on like, a clear step of their own. Then it’s all the other places, but
like Pori, Oulu, Vaasa, which also has a big finance side and is popular for it, Kuopio, and well, let’s put Joen-
suu in the same rank. And Jyväskylä. (Samuel, M, 26, Kuopio)
As Samuel’s listing demonstrates, the admission threshold differences are so small between uni-
versities that, after Aalto University, the hierarchical order is not exact and consistent. People can
prioritise different regional universities, and eventually forget some option, as Samuel did with
LUT. Usually, our interviewees did not rank all universities but said that they had speculated
between two or three options when applying to university.
For one reason or another, the closest regional university was the only option for many of the
interviewees. In particular, the mature students who had work and family obligations had limited
opportunities for mobility with regard to university choices. There were also some interviewees,
such as Benjamin and Sara, graduates from UEF, who had approached admission thresholds in
reverse order to find out the easiest option for admission to business studies.
I applied to Joensuu because I had the idea that, like, it’s maybe easy to get into. (Benjamin, M, 37, Joensuu)
We didn’t really think, yay, we’ll just get into [Aalto]— because you need so many exam points to get in. So,
you need to almost ace the entrance test, [much] lower points are needed here. (Sara, F, 24, Joensuu)
Sara had strategised in the admissions and “self-excluded” the leading institution. Eventually, she
gained access through an open university gateway to a regional university, which was a kind of
backup plan for her. The availability of alternative admission routes (see Footnote 4) was an inter-
esting aspect of the institutional hierarchies of Finnish universities. For example, in the Aalto Uni-
versity School of Business, the alternative admissions were also highly selective, and applicants of
separate master’s degree programmes needed high GMAT or GRE test results. In other universities,
separate master’s programmes seldom demanded competitive entrance examinations. Sarianna and
Andrei, who had prior bachelor’s degrees and had, therefore, gained entry directly to master’s pro-
grammes at a regional university, stated this very clearly: “I saw it like taking the easiest route to get
in” (Sarianna, F, 29, Joensuu); “I didn’t need to pass an entry exam” (Andrei, M, 30, Joensuu).
4.3. Future exchange value of education: alumni recruitment
Finnish business graduates, in general, have good prospects of being employed in high-paid, high-
status jobs (Isopahkala-Bouret et al., 2021). Most of our interviewees considered all business
8 U. ISOPAHKALA-BOURET ET AL.
graduates with master’s degrees to have equal qualifications and status in the Finnish labour market,
as Katariina claimed in the following.
In Finland, the level of education is equal, no matter which university, so I don’t think that [graduating from]
Aalto University…would’ve made me progress any faster on my career path or anything. (Katariina, F, 29,
Joensuu)
However, there were also opposing accounts in our interview data. For example, Ken and Miika
experienced difficulties in their job search due to the reputation of their regional universities. It
was especially challenging to apply for jobs in southern Finland.
Certain companies have hired from universities with higher status… like, where the application thresholds are
higher, for example. (Ken, M, 25, Vaasa)
I know many companies that hire people from Aalto not based on candidates’ competence but just on their
university — Vaasa can even be seen as a faraway place [and] it felt kind of unfair. (Miika, M, 25, Vaasa)
The reason for the (specific) employers to target their recruitment to only universities in southern
Finland has a lot to do with the location of the employing organisations. Most Finnish employers in
the business sector operate in the capital area. A good location increases institutional attractiveness,
and Aalto was especially mentioned as having an advantage in terms of the proximity of business
partners and graduate employers. From the student’s point of view, Otso (M, 26, Aalto) acknowl-
edged that those who study in the capital find it much easier to attend recruitment events and meet
recruiting consultants. Moreover, in the following quotations, Sakari explained why some corpor-
ations, such as the international consulting and accounting firms where he worked, targeted their
recruitment only to the few selected business schools:
To be honest, we’re working together with universities a lot. We recruit for trainee programmes, and we’re
really not very interested in if you’re at Oulu Business School. We focus on the Aalto and Turku School of
Economics, maybe like Lappeenranta. Places nearby, but we focus anyway on the interesting schools. (Sakari,
M, 29, Turku)
In addition to the favourable location, the interviewees addressed reputational status hierarchies
and selectivity of admissions as reasons for recruiting employers’ preferences. Moreover, the lead-
ing institutions also received greater visibility and employers’ interest because of their size as the
biggest business schools in Finland, as Tea admits: “If you consider that you have several hundred
business graduates with master’s degrees from Turku in comparison with 50 from Kuopio, on
which one you would target your marketing [for graduate jobs]?” (Tea, 27, Kuopio). In addition,
the interviewees, such as Samuel and Otso, have heard through the grapevine that alumni networks
and regional connections played an important role in graduate recruitment in both the capital and
other regions:
I’ve heard, maybe from not-so-great sources, but there are rumours and some stories that, for example, in
Turku, there are some companies that want to recruit their trainees straight from the University of Turku.
(Samuel, M, 26, Kuopio)
I’ve heard that some people think that it matters from which business school you’re from. — I think that it’s
partly a kind of hype from alumni. (Otso, M, 26, Aalto)
The perceived exchange value was constructed in terms of how much individual effort one has to
put into self-promotion in the recruitment situation, in comparison to how much one can rely on
the high reputational value of one’s own university. The difference is clearly stated in the opposing
quotes by Birgitta and Tea:
Well, I’m in such a lucky position that I don’t have to market myself in any way; the university I went to is kind
of well-known. (Birgitta, F, 26, Turku)
So, a certain kind of humility has come about, so that we’re not, our university doesn’t have such a good repu-
tation that it by it- by itself would speak for itself or be an obvious sign that you’ve got strong competence on
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 9
this field. And I feel that both, like, myself and my fellow students have had a need to show off that we’re, like,
actually good and hardworking and through that we’ve also succeeded. (Tea, F, 27, Kuopio)
4.4 Student culture: competitiveness and resemblance to business stereotypes
Institutional and expressive orders can provide contradictory reputational status to institutions. For
example, the small size of the business unit, which was evaluated as a disadvantage in the recruit-
ment of primary applicants and in the competition for employer visibility, was an advantage in
terms of student culture. Regional universities and satellite campuses were perceived as having a
friendly, inclusive, and co-operative student culture and thereby perceived as having an intriguing
expressive order. This constructed an opposing angle to the status hierarchies between universities,
which were based typically on the competitive, instrumental order. In the smaller business school
units the students across different annual cohorts knew each other and were helpful in their studies,
as Sakari narrated:
It’s nevertheless a small unit in Pori… so people also knew… You basically knew the whole programme, the
older, the younger, you knew people from all years and that they came to chat, and everyone was actually
together, and the sense of community in the way that when someone had been on a course, they helped
each other. You got materials and notes…Good tips on exams and the like. And that people really helped
each other and worked together. (Sakari, M, 29, Turku)
Although regional universities had not been the first choice for many, they were perceived as good
universities among alumni. For example, Miika, who was from southern Finland near the capital
city, said that he had been very confident that he would go to Aalto University. He placed Aalto
first, Turku second, and Vaasa in third position during application. To his initial disappointment,
he was accepted to Vaasa: “Damn! I got accepted to Vaasa”. He emphasised that his reaction was
just reflecting the common opinion by sharing the expectations of his friends and relatives: “After
two weeks from returning home to southern Finland, friends and acquaintances asked if I started
applying to Aalto University in Helsinki” (Miika, M, 25, Vaasa). However, Miika soon noticed
that he had actually been very lucky, and in his evaluation, Vaasa University has a very high qual-
ity of teaching and great fellow students. In this case, he valued the features of expressive order in
a smaller unit over the presumed prestige and instrumental value of going to a university in the
capital region. In his case, even the closeness to home was devalued after experiencing the “spirit”
of a smaller university town. Miika thereby battled also the expectations of his friends and rela-
tives when not changing universities later to a prestigious, high-ranking, and closer-to-home
university.
From the perspective of expressive order, the interviewees perceived regionality as adding a par-
ticular flavour to the student culture. Of course, the regional culture was perceived differently by the
local students and those who had moved to the university from other Finnish provinces. For
example, the Joensuu campus of the University of Eastern Finland is located far from the capital
region and the urban business centres, but it nourishes its own strong Karelian heritage. Moreover,
it does not have as strong reputation as some other business school units. In the following, Katariina
turned the specific culture and the neutral status into an advantage: Joensuu graduates have more
freedom to define who they are:
It’s some kind of, I don’t know, a funny place. I like it, I think Joensuu is wonderful, like, very student driven
… I like the idea that it’s kind of like an eastern Finnish university. And that it doesn’t have the kind of status
like, let’s say, Aalto University, so that if you’ve gone to Aalto or Hanken, for example, you immediately have
subconscious thoughts on those people, whether taking a stance on if it’s good or bad. But this is like neutral,
you think like “The University of Eastern Finland? In Joensuu? Oh, okay.” (Katariina, F, 29, Joensuu)
By contrast, the students of the leading business schools were associated with strong stereotypes.
They were perceived as ambitious, having a keen interest in finance, and typically working alongside
university studies to get real business experience, as Mette indicated in the following:
10 U. ISOPAHKALA-BOURET ET AL.
What’s maybe pretty stereotypical, I think it paints a picture of the kind of a typical case where in Aalto Uni-
versity there’s a student of finance, usually male, who’s interested in financial matters…who works alongside
studying if possible and kind of invests heavily into their studies [wanting the best grades and all that] but also
likes to party a lot during their spare time. (Mette, F, Aalto)
Our interviewees from the leading business schools did not necessarily associate themselves with
stereotypical business students and the related characteristics of youthfulness, masculinity, and
ambitiousness. However, they admitted that such stereotypical cultural expectations existed. “[In
a leading business school] people are ambitious. [They are competitive], although they don’t necess-
arily compete against each other”. (Mette, F, 26, Aalto). The competitive student culture was a rela-
tive phenomenon: in comparison with universities that were perceived as having a higher stance,
the interviewees’ own university was considered more non-competitive, collegial, and relaxed, as
can be observed in the following quote by Samuel.
When we’ve compared our experiences, they’re very different. Things like this matter of competition, there’s a
funny difference because I’ve never felt like there’s been any competition… but in Turku, for example, I hear
it’s a very different story. There, it’s important that you’re the bigger fish, so to say. (Samuel, M, 26 Kuopio)
In Samuel’s comparison, students at Turku wanted to be “bigger fish” and better than the others.
Whereas Miro (M, 27, Turku) explained that although Aalto was competitive, the Turku School
of Business was an “open and warm” place with a “nice, little smaller atmosphere”. Thus, the
expressive order did not clearly differentiate the Finnish business units in hierarchical terms,
when it comes to student experience. Overall, in all universities, there was a heterogeneous student
population, and some students were regarded as more competitive than others. Even the stereoty-
pical business student was recognised as representing a common image, not necessarily associated
with all students in any particular university.
5 Discussion
Our findings demonstrate how Finnish business graduates (n = 43) constructed hierarchical differ-
ences between national universities. Applying and being selected as a student in a highly competi-
tive field of business administration and economics required reflection on the instrumental and
expressive orders (Bernstein 1977) of different institutions. Based on our analysis, we identified
two “ideal types” of business schools with distinguishing institutional selectiveness, competitive-
ness, and achievement. On the one hand, there were the old business schools, established in the
beginning and middle of the twentieth century and, on the other hand, there were the regional uni-
versities with the new business faculties established in the 1990s and 2000s (c.f., Kettunen et al.,
2022). The “old” institutions had the highest number of applicants in total and in terms of primary
applicants. An interesting empirical finding was that the Finnish students did not primarily base
their evaluations of the performance and quality of different business schools (i.e., the institutional
order) on global rankings, but on the “ranking” of different admission thresholds.
The perceived hierarchies in instrumental order among the Finnish business schools seemed
rather persistent (see also: Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2018; Kettunen et al., 2022). However, our specific
theoretical contribution is to address the role of “expressive order” in complicating and contradict-
ing such established, instrumental ranking orders. In terms of future exchange value (instrumental
order), the leading institutions were seen as better connected with and as enjoying an outstanding
reputation among (selected) employers. However, the high prestige and expected future exchange
value were not always valued over the favourable institutional character and style (expressive
order), especially among students at regional universities. The student culture of the “old” insti-
tutions had a reputation of being more competitive and the student population was more “stereo-
typical”, that is, young, wealthy, masculine, and highly ambitious to succeed in the world of
business. This reflects two facts: first, the status hierarchies of universities were not perceived as
such a determining factor in the national labour market that everyone would target admission to
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 11
the most prestigious, highly-ranked universities. And second, the students in the less-prestigious
universities were not worried about not being in the most prestigious schools. Even at times, the
regional universities could overcome their inferior positions in rankings by attracting and keeping
high-achieving students with their friendly and inclusive university culture and student life.
Further, the geographical locations of universities contributed to institutional hierarchies in a
slightly ambiguous ways. The clarification of this interrelatedness between status and location is
our second theoretical contribution. First, favourable geographical location represented an added
value to many students, whereas long distance from southern Finland, where most of the employing
businesses are located, was perceived as a disadvantage to the institutional reputation (c.f., Hinton,
2011). Second, as the universities are located apart from one another by several hundred kilometres,
no real “market” competition for students takes place within a region, but rather between regions.
The interviewees mentioned the special appeal of the regional student culture, but it was not con-
sidered a hierarchical divide between universities.
In the Nordic countries, the provision of HE is embedded with regional policy—regional equal-
ity, availability of competent workforce, and ensuring of professional well-fare services, particularly
in sparsely populated regions. This study has provided a starting point for studying the interrelat-
edness of institutional hierarchies through instrumental and expressive orders and regional
inequalities in the Nordic context (see also Junkkari & Nevala, 2021; Saari et al., 2016). More
analytical work on the role of social class in relation to the diversifying geographies of HE would
be required, as it remains outside the scope of this article (Clayton et al., 2009). In the future, special
focus needs to be directed to student admission as a national “ranking device” that drives compe-
tition among universities. As implied by this article, future research and policymaking should con-
tinue to address the social risks of increasing institutional hierarchies and regional inequalities.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the Academy of Finland for funding this research (grant number: 315797). We would
like to thank our research team, who participated in conducting the research interviews. We would also like to thank
the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by Academy of Finland: [Grant Number 315797].
Declaration of interest statement
The authors report that there are no competing interests to declare.
ORCID
Ulpukka Isopahkala-Bouret http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8535-8874
Sonja Kosunen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8093-7052
Nina Haltia http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2139-1405
References
Abrams, S. E. (2021, April 20). Getting education data right: The case of high school admissions. Columbia journalism
review. Available at: https://www.cjr.org/analysis/education-data-admissions-selectivity-algorithm-new-york.php
12 U. ISOPAHKALA-BOURET ET AL.
Alajoutsijärvi, K., Kettunen, K., & Sohlo, S. (2018). Shaking the status quo: Business accreditation and positional
competition. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 17(2), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.
2015.0199
Aula, H.-M., Tienari, J., &Wæraas, A. (2015). The university branding game. Players, interests, politics. International
Studies of Management & Organizations, 45(2), 164–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2015.1006015
Ball, S. J., Davies, J., David, M., & Reay, D. (2002). ‘Classification’ and ‘judgement’: Social class and the ‘cognitive
structures’ of choice of higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(1), 51–72. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01425690120102854
Bernstein, B. (1977). Class, codes and control: Towards a theory of educational transmissions (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason. On the theory of action. Stanford University Press.
Clayton, J., Crozier, G., & Reay, D. (2009). Home and away: Risk, familiarity and the multiple geographies of the
higher education experience. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 19(3-4), 157–174. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09620210903424469
Croxford, L., & Raffe, D. (2015). The iron law of hierarchy? Institutional differentiation in UK higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1625–1640. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.899342
Elken, M., Hovdhaugen, E., & Stensaker, B. (2016). Global rankings in the nordic region: Challenging the identity of
research-intensive universities? Higher Education, 72(6), 781–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9975-6
Elken, M., Stensaker, B., & Hovdhaugen, E. (2017). Do global university rankings drive convergence? Evidence from
the nordic region. In E. Hazelkorn (Ed.), Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education (pp. 268–281).
Routledge.
Hazelkorn, E. (Ed.). (2017). Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education. Understanding the influence and
impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society. Routledge.
Hinton, D. (2011). ‘Wales is my home’: Higher education aspirations and student mobilities in Wales. Children’s
Geographies, 9(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2011.540436
Isopahkala-Bouret, U. (2019). Troublesome access. Non-admission experiences in a competitive Finnish higher edu-
cation. Social Sciences, 8(11), 302. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8110302
Isopahkala-Bouret, U., Aro, M., & Ojala, K. (2021). Positional competition in a binary system: The case of Finnish
higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 27(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-021-
09070-8
Isopahkala-Bouret, U., Börjesson, M., Beach, D., Haltia, N., Jónasson, J.-T., Jauhiainen, A., Jauhiainen, A., Kosunen,
S., Nori, H., & Vabø, A. (2018). Access and stratification in Nordic higher education. A review of cross-cutting
research themes and issues. Education Inquiry, 9(1), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1429769
Junkkari, T., & Nevala, A. (2021). Läheltä vai kaukaa? Yliopisto- ja ammattikorkeakouluopiskelijoiden alueellinen
rekrytoituminen 2010-luvulla. Tiedepolitiikka, 46(2), 19–31.
Kettunen, K., Alajoutsijärvi, K., Hunnes, J., & Pinheiro, R. (2022). Emergence and early institutionalization of com-
petition in higher education: Evidence from Finnish business schools. Tertiary Education and Management, 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-022-09104-9
Kosunen, S. (2014). Reputation and parental logics of action in local school choice space in Finland. Journal of
Education Policy, 29(4), 443–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.844859
Kosunen, S., Niemi, A. M., & Laaksonen, L. M. (2022). Class, migrant background and misrecognition of capital in
the university admission. Ethnography and Education, 17(4), 368–388.
Ma, A. S. (2022). Assessing the effects of university reputation and city image on international student destination
choice: Evidence from a flagship university in Taipei. Education and Urban Society, 54(8), 992–1009. https://
doi.org/10.1177/00131245211013844
Myers, M., & Bhopal, K. (2021). Cosmopolitan brands: Graduate students navigating the social space of elite global
universities. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 42(5-6), 701–716. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2021.1941763
Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2013). University rankings in critical perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(4),
544–568. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2013.0022
Raveaud, M., & van Zanten, A. (2007). Choosing the local school: Middle class parents’ values and social and ethnic
mix in London and Paris. Journal of Education Policy, 22(1), 107–124. DOI: 10.1080/02680930601065817
Reay, D., Crozierb, G., & Clayton, J. (2010). ‘Fitting in’ or ‘standing out’: Working class students in UK higher edu-
cation. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902878925
Saari, S., Inkinen, A., & Mikkonen, J. (2016). Korkeakoulutuksen alueellinen tasa-arvo ja segregaatio. Otus, 54(2016).
van Zanten, A. (2009). Choisir son école: Stratégies familiales et médiations locales. Presses Universitaires de France.
Wedlin, L. (2010). Going global: Rankings as rhetorical devices to construct an internal field of management edu-
cation. Management Learning, 42(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507610389683
Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2015). Factors affecting university image formation among prospective higher education
students: The case of international branch campuses. Studies in Higher Education, 40(7), 1256–1272. DOI: 10.
1080/03075079.2014.881347
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 13