Learn Hardcore Finnish: Minä harkitsen, mikä ammatti sopii minulle ja millaista uraa haluan. - I am considering which profession suits me and what kind of career I want.

for emphasis:
- Minä harkitsen... = I am the one who is considering (maybe others aren’t).
for contrast:
- Minä harkitsen, mutta hän ei. – I am considering, but he/she is not.

In normal, neutral speech and writing, the more typical form would be without Minä.

What exactly does harkitsen mean, and how is it different from ajattelen or mietin?

Harkitsen comes from harkita and means to consider, to deliberate, to weigh options. It suggests a somewhat careful, maybe rational decision process.

Rough comparisons:

harkita – to consider (often with a decision in mind)
- Harkitsen alan vaihtoa. – I’m considering changing fields.
miettiä – to think (about), to ponder
- Mietin tulevaisuuttani. – I’m thinking about my future.
ajatella – to think (in general), to have something in mind
- Ajattelen sinua. – I’m thinking of you.
- Ajattelen, että... – I think that...

In your sentence, harkitsen feels very natural because you’re talking about planning and choosing a profession and career. Mietin, mikä ammatti... would also be correct, just a bit more neutral “I’m thinking about which profession…”. Ajattelen, mikä ammatti... is less natural; with ajatella you usually say Ajattelen, että... + a statement, not a question-word clause.

Why is there a comma after harkitsen?

In Finnish, you normally put a comma between a main clause and a subordinate clause, even if English might not.

Minä harkitsen, mikä ammatti sopii minulle...

Here:

Minä harkitsen = main clause
mikä ammatti sopii minulle ja millaista uraa haluan = subordinate clause introduced by the question word mikä.

Rule of thumb:
If there is a full clause starting with a conjunction or a question/relative word (että, koska, vaikka, kun, joka, mikä, miten, missä, millainen, etc.), you usually separate it from the main clause with a comma.

So the comma is grammatical and expected here.

Why is it mikä ammatti and not mitä ammattia?

Two different things are going on:

mikä vs. mitä
- mikä is used with a single, countable noun in the subject or complement position, often meaning which / what (specific one).
  - Mikä ammatti sopii sinulle? – Which profession suits you?
- mitä (partitive of mikä) is used mainly:
  - with mass / uncountable nouns
  - as an object
  - in some expressions like Mitä kuuluu?
In Mikä ammatti sopii minulle?, ammatti is the subject of sopii, so mikä is correct.
ammatti vs. ammattia
- ammatti is nominative (dictionary form) – suitable for subjects:
  - Ammatti sopii. – The profession suits.
- ammattia is partitive – often used for indefinite objects or after certain verbs:
  - Opiskelen ammattia. – I’m studying for a profession.

Because ammatti is the subject of the verb sopii here, it must be in the nominative: mikä ammatti.

Why is it sopii minulle and not something like sopii minut or sopii minua?

The verb sopia in the sense of to suit / to fit is used with the allative case (-lle), which you can think of as a “to/for someone” case:

Pattern: joku asia sopii jollekin
- Tämä ammatti sopii minulle. – This profession suits me.
- Punainen väri sopii sinulle. – Red suits you.
- Työ sopii hänelle. – The job suits him/her.

So:

minulle = to/for me (allative)
minut = me (object, accusative)
minua = me (partitive)

With sopia in this meaning, you don’t use minut or minua for the person. You must use jollekin → minulle.

Why is it millaista uraa instead of millainen ura?

Millaista uraa shows two things at once:

millaista is the partitive singular of millainen (what kind of).
Forms (singular):
- nominative: millainen
- genitive: millaisen
- partitive: millaista
uraa is the partitive singular of ura (career).

They match because millaista uraa together is the (indefinite) object of haluan:

Haluan uran. – I want a (specific) career. (total object, nominative uran)
Haluan uraa. – I want a career / some kind of career (in general). (partitive uraa)

In your sentence, with the question word millaista, it’s natural to keep it indefinite and use partitive:

millaista uraa haluan – what kind of career (in general) I want

So millaista uraa is simply “what kind of (some) career”, with both words in partitive to show this open, non-specific idea.

Could I say mitä uraa haluan instead of millaista uraa haluan?

You can say mitä uraa haluan, but the meaning changes:

millaista uraa haluan = what kind of career I want
– asking about the quality / type / nature of the career (creative? stable? international?).
mitä uraa haluan = which career I want
– more about choosing between actual options (this specific career path or that one).

So for “I’m considering what kind of career I want”, millaista uraa is exactly right. Mitä uraa would sound more like you already see a set of concrete alternative careers and are choosing one.

Why is uraa in the partitive case? Could I say millaista uran haluan?

You cannot say millaista uran haluan; the adjective and noun must match in case:

millaista uraa – both in partitive
millaisen uran – both in genitive/“accusative” form

The choice of case here is about how definite or complete the object is:

millaisen uran haluan – what (exact) career I want (a more concrete choice; “which whole career”).
millaista uraa haluan – what kind of career I want (more open, general, qualitative).

In your sentence, the idea is a general reflection, not picking one very specific well-defined career, so millaista uraa (partitive) fits better.

Also, millaista uran is simply ungrammatical: adjective and noun cases must agree.

Why is the word order mikä ammatti sopii minulle rather than something like ammatti, joka sopii minulle?

You have here an indirect question, not a relative clause:

Direct question: Mikä ammatti sopii minulle? – Which profession suits me?
Indirect question: Harkitsen, mikä ammatti sopii minulle. – I’m considering which profession suits me.

In Finnish, an indirect question keeps the same word order as the direct question (question word first, then the rest), it just loses the question mark and becomes part of a larger sentence.

A relative clause would look different:

Se ammatti, joka sopii minulle, on lääkärin ammatti.
– The profession that suits me is being a doctor.

Here, joka sopii minulle describes a specific ammatti you’ve already identified. In your sentence, you are still trying to find out which profession it is, so the indirect question with mikä ammatti sopii minulle is correct.

Why don’t we use että after harkitsen, like harkitsen, että...?

Että introduces a content clause that states a fact or opinion:

Ajattelen, että tämä ammatti sopii minulle.
– I think that this profession suits me.
Tiedän, että ura on tärkeä.
– I know that a career is important.

But in your sentence, the subordinate clause is an indirect question, starting with a question word (mikä, millaista):

Harkitsen, mikä ammatti sopii minulle...
...ja millaista uraa haluan.

When a subordinate clause already begins with a question word (mitä, mikä, millainen, missä, miten, etc.), you do not add että. You either have että or a question word at the start, not both.

So:

Harkitsen, että tämä ammatti sopii minulle. – I consider / think that this profession suits me.
Harkitsen, mikä ammatti sopii minulle. – I am considering which profession suits me.

Different structure, different meaning.

What’s the difference between ammatti and ura in this sentence?

Both relate to work, but they focus on different aspects:

ammatti = profession, trade, occupation
- more about what you are / what you do: teacher, nurse, engineer, carpenter, etc.
- often something with a name you can put on a form.
ura = career, career path
- broader idea of long-term development in working life
- not just the label, but how your working life progresses: promotions, changes, achievements.

So:

mikä ammatti sopii minulle – which specific profession (teacher, doctor, programmer, etc.) is suitable for me.
millaista uraa haluan – what kind of career path I want (stable government job, international corporate career, creative freelance life, etc.).

Putting them together in one sentence nicely separates the concrete job label (ammatti) from the overall trajectory and style of work life (ura).