Every time a controversy surrounds NEET, a familiar suggestion resurfaces: India should adopt China’s Gaokao, or India should copy the American admission model, or India should move entirely to the European system.
Such comparisons are attractive, but they are often incomplete.
The first principle of public policy is simple—institutions must be designed around the society they serve. An examination system suitable for one country cannot automatically succeed in another with vastly different demographics, constitutional obligations, educational structures and governance arrangements.
India today stands at a stage where it should stop searching for borrowed solutions and instead develop an Indian Examination Model based on Indian realities.
India conducts one of the world’s largest ecosystems of undergraduate entrance examinations.
Every year around one crore entrance examination forms are submitted; approximately 75–85 lakh examination appearances take place; and these represent nearly 40–50 lakh unique students, many of whom appear in multiple examinations.
This ecosystem includes—NEET; JEE Main; CUET; CLAT; NDA; IISER Aptitude Test; State CETs; Agriculture, Nursing and Allied Health examinations; design and Architecture examinations; and private university entrance tests.
No major country operates an undergraduate admission system of this diversity and scale.
China’s Gaokao is often cited as the ideal model but Gaokao is fundamentally different. It is China’s principal university entrance examination, covering admissions to medicine, engineering, law, humanities, commerce and sciences.
NEET, by contrast, is only a medical entrance examination. Comparing the two as though they perform the same function is misleading.
India follows a national merit framework. Every NEET candidate writes essentially the same examination.
A student from Jammu competes with one from Chennai, Guwahati or Jaipur under a common national ranking system, followed by counselling and constitutionally recognised reservation policies, while states also retain substantial quota-based admissions in their own institutions.
Although Gaokao operates within a national framework, admissions are organised largely through provincial competition and province-specific seat allocations.
A student from Beijing competes primarily within Beijing’s allocation and a student from Henan competes within Henan’s allocation.
The same university can effectively require different admission scores depending on the applicant’s province. This reflects China’s administrative choices and regional planning priorities.
Neither model can simply be transplanted into the other country.
Whereas, India’s admission system is shaped by constitutional principles, judicial decisions and social policy. It incorporates—national mobility, reservation for constitutionally recognised categories, state quotas, institutional autonomy in specified cases, linguistic diversity, and federal governance.
These constitutional features do not have direct equivalents in China’s higher education admissions framework.
Consequently, simply importing Gaokao would require changes extending far beyond examination procedures.
India’s challenge is not the absence of a national examination. It already has several. The challenge lies in—securing examinations against organised fraud, reducing duplication of entrance tests, improving candidate experience, strengthening institutional accountability, using technology responsibly, ensuring timely investigations, and maintaining public trust.
These are governance challenges rather than merely examination-format challenges.
India should certainly learn from international best practices. For example: AI-assisted monitoring; stronger cyber security; end-to-end encryption; blockchain-based audit trails where appropriate; independent annual security audits; time-bound investigations; dedicated examination crime units; advanced digital forensics and professional examination management.
These are valuable reforms because they address operational integrity.
However, they should be incorporated into an Indian framework, not through wholesale imitation of another country’s admission philosophy.
India should now establish a comprehensive National Examination Integrity Architecture consisting of a National Examination Integrity Commission; a National Unique Candidate Registry to eliminate duplication while protecting privacy; annual security certification for all major examination agencies; statutory accountability for examination authorities; AI-assisted fraud detection and cyber monitoring; independent post-examination forensic audits; candidate compensation where examinations are cancelled because of institutional failure; permanent fast-track courts for organised examination offences; and continuous research on examination security and assessment methods.
Such reforms would strengthen confidence without disturbing the constitutional foundations of India’s education system.
The debate should not be framed as NEET versus Gaokao, or India versus China. The real question is—Can India build the world’s most trusted examination ecosystem while remaining faithful to its own constitutional values, federal structure and educational diversity? The answer should be yes.
India has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to create institutions suited to its own conditions—from Aadhaar to UPI to digital public infrastructure. The same confidence should guide educational reform.
Rather than importing foreign examination models, India should build an Indian Examination Model—one that combines transparency, technology, accountability, security and constitutional fairness.
Only such a model can meet the aspirations of millions of Indian students while reflecting the realities of the world’s largest democracy.
