The ‘cheap and best’ mirage: Why 25,000 Indian medical students in China face an uncertain future

For the Indian middle class, the pursuit of a medical degree is often a collision between high aspiration and brutal arithmetic. In the 2024-2025 academic cycle, over 24 lakh candidates appeared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET-UG), competing for a limited pool of approximately 1.18 lakh MBBS seats. The mathematics of this system ejects nearly 95% of aspirants from the government sector, where tuition is affordable. In this vacuum of opportunity, a “displacement engine” has emerged, pushing thousands of students across borders.

Among the destinations for these displaced students, the People’s Republic of China stands out. Approximately 25,000 Indian students are currently pursuing MBBS degrees at Chinese universities. They are drawn by a marketing narrative that promises world-class infrastructure at a fraction of the cost of Indian private colleges — a proposition often sold as “Cheap and Best”. However, a closer examination of regulatory data, licensing exam statistics, and academic realities suggests that this route is fraught with challenges such as potential inadequacies in clinical training, regulatory hurdles, and diminishing returns on investment.

Financial barriers in India

To understand the student migration to cities like Zhengzhou, Shenyang, and Nanjing, one must first examine the financial barriers in India. For a student who misses the cut-off for a government seat, the domestic alternative is the private medical college. This sector operates on a financial model that is largely exclusionary. The tuition fees for a 5.5-year MBBS course in Indian private colleges and deemed universities typically range from ₹20 lakh to upwards of ₹70 lakh per year. When including management quotas and ancillary costs, the total expenditure often exceeds ₹1 crore.

For a family with an annual income of ₹10-15 lakh, this cost is a challenges. In contrast, Chinese universities offer a lifeline. The total cost of an MBBS degree in China, including tuition and living expenses, generally falls between ₹20 lakh and ₹30 lakh. Agents market this as an arbitrage opportunity: a global degree for the price of a mid-sized Indian car.

Infrastructure and resource differences

While the Indian government has expanded capacity – increasing medical colleges by over 100% since 2014 – the rapid growth has birthed its own issues. Reports indicate that many new government colleges in remote districts suffer from acute faculty shortages. Faced with the choice between a new, under-resourced college in rural India or a massive, established university in China, many students choose the latter.

The primary allure of Chinese medical universities is their physical infrastructure. Institutions such as Jilin University and China Medical University operate on a scale that dwarfs most Indian counterparts. Jilin University, for instance, is affiliated with hospitals containing over 6,000 beds. Marketing brochures showcase 20-storey libraries, Olympic-sized swimming pools, and advanced simulation centres. This is the “hardware” of the Chinese education model, and it is undeniably world-class.

Lack of hands-on training due to language barrier

However, medical education relies on “software” – specifically, clinical training and patient interaction. This is where the model frequently can fail international students. The single greatest impediment is the language barrier. While universities require students to pass the HSK (Chinese proficiency test) Level 4, this standardised test does not equate to the medical fluency required to take a patient’s history or understand complex symptoms in a local dialect.

Because they cannot communicate effectively with patients, Indian students are often systematically excluded from active participation in hospital wards. While Chinese students take history and perform basic examinations, international students are frequently relegated to the role of “silent observers”. They watch procedures from the back of the room but do not perform them.

This lack of hands-on training reduces the clinical rotation – the most critical years of medical training – to a passive experience. The students have access to thousands of hospital beds, but they cannot meaningfully interact with the patients in them.

Epidemiological mismatch

To compensate, universities rely heavily on simulation centres. While high-fidelity mannequins are valuable tools, they cannot replicate the unpredictability of human pathology. Furthermore, there is an epidemiological mismatch. Students trained in China’s temperate climate gain proficiency in managing lifestyle diseases common to an ageing population, but miss out on the exposure to tropical infectious diseases like malaria, dengue, and tuberculosis, which constitute a significant disease burden in India.

Connecting the Indian demand with the Chinese supply is a vast, unregulated network of educational agents. This industry operates on a commission model, where agents receive payouts from universities for every student enrolled. This creates a conflict of interest: agents are incentivised to place students in universities that pay the highest commissions, not necessarily those with the best academic standards.

Underperformance in FMGE

Deceptive practices are common. A pervasive issue is the misrepresentation of the medium of instruction. The Chinese Ministry of Education authorises only 45 universities to teach MBBS entirely in English. However, agents often sell “bilingual” programmes at other universities as English-medium courses. In these programmes, instruction often shifts to Mandarin in later years, or is delivered by faculty with limited English proficiency who rely on reading from slides. This puts the student’s degree at risk of derecognition in India.

The most objective measure of this educational model is graduates’ performance on the Foreign Medical Graduate Examination (FMGE), the licensing exam required to practice in India. The data reveals a consistent pattern of underperformance. In recent cycles (2023-2024), the pass rate for graduates from Chinese universities has hovered between 11% and 19%. This means that more than 80% of students returning from China fail to clear the licensing exam on their first attempt.

By comparison, graduates from the Philippines consistently achieve pass rates around 24%, and those from Bangladesh often surpass 26%. These countries offer education in English-speaking environments with clinical practices and disease profiles similar to India. The low pass rates for China-educated students suggest that the lack of clinical reasoning skills and hands-on practice is a systemic failure, not a reflection of student capability.

Time tax

The challenges for these students have been compounded by a shift in India’s regulatory landscape. The National Medical Commission (NMC) has introduced the Foreign Medical Graduate Licentiate (FMGL) Regulations 2021, which impose strict criteria for recognising foreign degrees.

The new rules mandate a minimum course duration of 54 months and require the entire course to be taught in English. Crucially, the regulations require a dual internship. Graduates must complete a 12-month internship in the foreign country and a subsequent 12-month supervised internship in India.

This creates a significant “time tax”. For a student in China, the path to becoming a doctor now requires at least seven years: five years of coursework, one year of an internship in China, and one year of an internship in India. This assumes the student passes the licensure exam on the first attempt. This delay erodes the return on investment, as the graduate remains a financial dependent well into their late twenties.

Furthermore, the impending transition to the National Exit Test (NExT), scheduled for 2026, poses an existential threat. NExT will replace the FMGE and includes a practical clinical examination (Step 2). Given the documented lack of hands-on training in China, graduates who have primarily learned through observation and simulation are likely to face significant difficulties in passing a practical exam that tests actual clinical skills.

Study in China as soft power

The influx of Indian students is also a component of China’s broader strategic goals. Through the “Study in China” initiative, Beijing aims to increase its soft power by creating a generation of foreign professionals with ties to the country. This aligns with the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), seeking to build people-to-people bonds. The Chinese government subsidises tuition to maintain high enrollment numbers, which in turn boosts the global rankings of its universities.

The “Cheap and Best” narrative that sustains the flow of Indian students to China has several holes. The model is “cheap” only if one ignores the opportunity cost of the extended duration and the high risk of unemployability. It is “best” only if one prioritises the scale of campus buildings over the quality of clinical mentorship. For the thousands of Indian students currently enrolled, the situation presents a triple challenge: an academic deficit caused by the lack of patient interaction, a regulatory wall erected by the NMC, and an economic trap where a low initial investment leads to years of delayed earnings.

Many of these factors may apply or perhaps even collectively to MBBS offered by other countries. But they need to be studied on a case-to-case to compare and contrast.

(Jayant Shilanjan Mundhra is an independent business analyst who runs newsletters called Decoding the Dragon and BharatNama and actively presents deepdives on listed Indian companies, public policies and Chinese strides in varied domains.)

(Sign up for THEdge, The Hindu’s weekly education newsletter.)