In recent months, the harsh realities surrounding competitive exams in India have garnered substantial attention. Issues such as paper leaks, unethical practices by candidates to secure seats, and the severe living conditions faced by aspirants are now receiving extensive coverage in the Indian news cycle. These problems are exacerbated by limited resources, insufficient job opportunities, and the sheer size of the population.
Grueling competitive exams are not unique to India; China, the world’s second most populous country, faces similar pressures. Both countries grapple with significant challenges stemming from the high stakes of these exams, which are often viewed as crucial determinants of personal worth, economic stability, and social status. In China, the most important competitive exam is the Gaokao, or National Higher Education Entrance Examination, held annually in June.
In June 2024, 13.42 million students appeared for the Gaokao, highlighting the scale and intensity of competitive testing in China. Social media platforms such as Weibo and WeChat are awash with exam tips and stories about how passing national exams can dramatically transform the lives of ordinary and disadvantaged students, underscoring the high value placed on academic success.
China’s other major competitive exams include the Zhongkao (High School Entrance Examination) and the Guokao (National Civil Service Examination). However, the Gaokao remains the most critical, often seen as a make-or-break test for students’ careers, reflecting the immense pressure associated with these exams.
Also read: China keeps making a strategic blunder—underestimating India’s role in Quad
Common ground in competitive exams
The burden of conventional methods for securing a livelihood is evident in both India and China. In the latter, this pressure is heightened by the now-discontinued one-child policy, which has led many families to place intense expectations on their single child to achieve notable success.
Recent issues such as paper leaks and unethical practices among candidates for civil service positions in India have sparked discussions on Weibo, leading to comparisons between the two countries. For instance, a Weibo post comparing the NEET exam paper leak in India with China’s examination management reflects on the global chaos surrounding exams and suggests that Beijing’s social governance capabilities might appear more robust and fairer in comparison. Another post highlighted the challenges India faces in implementing a unified examination system, noting that entrenched corruption exacerbates inequality. Another perspective highlights that in ‘Narendra Modi’s India’, the intense focus on civil service exams among young people reflects their belief that these exams are the most critical and perhaps the only path to success and stability.
Deteriorating relations between New Delhi and Beijing have sparked discussions on Chinese social media, with some posts slandering India’s educational system. Comparisons are drawn between the academic pressures faced by youths in both countries. A post depicted an Indian student as struggling under intense academic pressure, while a Chinese peer is shown thriving and winning Olympic gold medals. Such comparisons project perceived shortcomings in India’s system and elevate the perceived success of Chinese and Hong Kong youth.
Several articles and posts suggest that Indians are confident they can surpass China, but to bridge the significant gaps in education, innovation, culture, and national management and align with their ambitions, India must address the disparity between ambition and reality.
An article comparing civil service exams in China and India described the latter’s as nearly as challenging as “climbing to heaven”. For the 2023 exam in India, 1.3 million candidates applied, with only 1,016 admitted, resulting in a competition ratio of 1,280:1 and a passing rate of 0.2 per cent. In contrast, China’s National Civil Service Bureau reported that 2.123 million candidates passed in 2021-22 (competition ratio of 68:1, passing rate of 1.47 per cent). In 2022-23, 2.598 million passed (ratio of 70:1, passing rate of 1.42 per cent), and in 2023-24, 3.033 million passed (ratio of 77:1, passing rate of 1.29 per cent). Another article disparagingly referred to India’s civil service exam as “the most brutal in history of exams”.
China’s exams are not free from problems
Despite Gaokao and Guokao’s professed goals of fairness and equal opportunity, they are plagued by significant issues such as long hours of studying, corruption, cheating, and exam paper leaks. The Gaokao, in particular, is often described as crossing a ‘single-plank bridge,’ symbolising the sole path to success amid fierce competition. The immense pressure associated with the exam has led to a troubling rise in student suicides; in 2014, approximately 93 per cent of high school student suicides in China were attributed to Gaokao-related stress.
Although the Gaokao is celebrated as a tool for promoting educational equity, its effectiveness is undermined by entrenched socio-economic disparities. Wealthy families often bypass the exam’s challenges by sending their children abroad for higher education, leaving those from less privileged backgrounds to face its harsh demands. China’s after-school private tutoring industry, estimated at US$ 120 billion, sees 93 per cent of parents sending their children for Gaokao preparation. Efforts by the central government to control tutoring costs have led to a rise in black market tutoring, exacerbating inequality and adding to the burdens faced by economically disadvantaged students.
Ultimately, the national competitive exams in both China and India reveal more than just a relentless pursuit of academic success; they expose significant disparities in resources and connections available to students. In societies obsessed with exam performances and rankings, a thorough re-evaluation of these systems is essential. Despite their geopolitical differences, China and India share similar systemic flaws in their examination processes, highlighting a pressing need for meaningful reforms to create fairer and more equitable pathways for all students.
Sana Hashmi is fellow at Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation. She tweets @sanahashmi1. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)
Actually, there is on difference — corruption in India is “competitive” whereas in China (and any other communist system since 1789) is consolidated to a single pyramid (with the supremo at the apex)