← All Guides
ScholarshipUnion Guides scholarshipunion.com →
Selection → Common Mistakes

What Kills SI Applications

Most rejections come from the same handful of mistakes. These are the patterns that evaluators flag — and that applicants keep repeating year after year.

Home / SI Scholarship / Common Mistakes

Why these mistakes matter

SI receives thousands of applications for around 402 spots. Evaluators are not looking to reject you — but a single fatal flaw will end your application, even if everything else is strong.

Fatal Mistakes

Not meeting the work experience requirement

Fatal

SI requires at least one year of full-time, paid work experience after your bachelor's degree. Internships, volunteer work, and part-time jobs do not count. If your employment dates don't clearly add up to 12 months, your application will be disqualified before evaluation begins.

Fix: Only apply once you have documented, paid full-time work. Make sure the dates on your CV are unambiguous.

Applying from a non-eligible country

Fatal

The SI Scholarship is only open to nationals of 34 specific developing countries. Dual nationals where one country is not on the list are ineligible. Check the official list before spending time on your application.

Fix: Verify your country is on the current eligible countries list before applying.

Applying to a programme you are not admitted to

Fatal

You must apply to both the master's programme at a Swedish university AND the SI Scholarship simultaneously. If you are not admitted to the programme, the scholarship lapses automatically. Applying to SI without a realistic chance at programme admission wastes your only scholarship application.

Serious Weaknesses

Vague leadership claims with no evidence

Serious

Writing "I have strong leadership skills" or "I led my team to success" means nothing to SI evaluators. Every applicant writes this. Leadership at SI means: you initiated something, built something, solved a specific problem, and can describe the before/after impact. If you cannot give a concrete example, the claim will be ignored.

Fix: Use the STAR method — Situation, Task, Action, Result — for every leadership example in your motivation letter.

Weak "return home" commitment

Serious

SI explicitly funds people who will return to their home country and contribute there. If your motivation letter is vague about how you will use your degree back home, evaluators will assume you are treating Sweden as an immigration route. Be specific: what problem will you solve, in what sector, using what you studied.

Generic motivation letter that could apply to any scholarship

Serious

If you remove your name and the word "Sweden" from your letter and it still makes sense, it is not tailored enough. Evaluators can tell immediately when a letter is recycled. Reference specific Swedish universities, specific courses, specific faculty, or specific aspects of Swedish society that connect to your goals.

Application Weaknesses

CV that reads as a job application, not a scholarship application

Weakens

Your CV for SI should highlight impact and leadership across your professional and community work — not just job responsibilities. Add a brief description of what you built or changed in each role, not just your title and employer name.

Applying to too many Swedish universities

Weakens

SI sees which programmes you applied to at Swedish universities. Applying to 8 completely unrelated programmes makes it look like you are not serious about any specific field — it signals desperation for entry rather than genuine academic purpose.

Not explaining the gap between your bachelor's and now

Weakens

If there are unexplained gaps in your timeline — years where nothing is listed — evaluators will notice. Briefly account for any gap, even if it was unemployment or personal circumstances. Leaving a gap unexplained looks like you are hiding something.

Read the selection criteria before you write anything

SI's three evaluation criteria — leadership potential, academic excellence, and capacity to contribute to development — are not equally weighted. Leadership is the most differentiating factor because grades are often similar across finalists. Read the Selection Process guide to understand exactly what evaluators are looking for.