Article

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• How overseas medical degrees were assessed before 2025
• What changed from May 2025 onwards
• GMC assessment approach: a practical comparison
• Why this matters for today’s applicants
• What students should clarify before enrolling
• SME Guidance

Introduction

Students planning to study medicine abroad with the intention of practising in the UK should be aware that the way overseas medical qualifications are assessed has evolved in recent years.

In particular, the assessment approach applied by the General Medical Council (GMC) before May 2025 differs meaningfully from the approach applied to graduates from 2025 onwards. Understanding this distinction is essential when reviewing older graduate outcomes, promotional statements, or historical claims made by medical schools or advisors.

How overseas medical degrees were assessed before 2025

Before May 2025, assessment of overseas medical qualifications commonly placed visible emphasis on quantifiable educational benchmarks, most notably the completion of approximately 5,500 instructional (clock) hours across the medical curriculum.

Medical schools typically demonstrated compliance by showing that:

• Teaching hours were distributed across pre-clinical and clinical phases
• Students were exposed to core clinical disciplines
• Clinical experience took place in supervised hospital or clinical settings

During this period, the organisation and delivery of clinical rotations varied between institutions. Clinical training models differed in terms of duration, sequencing, location, and how rotations were integrated within the wider programme. While many models satisfied instructional and disciplinary requirements, there was less uniformity in how clinical training connected into a continuous postgraduate training pathway.

This context is important when interpreting historical graduate outcomes.

What changed from May 2025 onwards

From May 2025 onwards, the GMC applies a more contextual and pathway-focused assessment approach. Rather than assessing isolated requirements in separation, greater attention is given to how the full education-to-training pathway functions in practice.

In practical terms, this means that the GMC now places increased importance on whether a graduate is eligible, in principle, to enter a recognised internship or foundation-level training programme in the country where they graduated, and whether they are able to register with the local medical council or regulator for that purpose.

Where graduates are not able to register locally or cannot access a recognised internship pathway in the country of qualification, this may raise questions about how the qualification and training pathway are assessed under current GMC expectations.

This does not represent a single rule change or a published checklist. Instead, it reflects a broader regulatory shift toward evaluating whether medical education, clinical training, and postgraduate progression form a credible and coherent pathway, assessed in the context of the system in which the qualification was awarded.

GMC assessment approach: a practical comparison

Pre-May 2025 (Earlier Assessment Approach)

• Greater emphasis on quantifiable educational criteria, such as completion of approximately 5,500 instructional hours
• Focus on exposure to core clinical disciplines
• Clinical rotations accepted where delivered in supervised clinical environments
• Variation existed in how clinical rotations were organised and sequenced across institutions
• Applications were often assessed on an individual or component basis

Post-May 2025 (Current Assessment Approach)

• Greater emphasis on how the full education and training pathway operates as a whole
• Assessment considers whether graduates are eligible to enter recognised internship or foundation-level training in the country of graduation
• Increased focus on whether graduates can register with the local medical council or regulator to undertake that training
• Evaluation takes place in context, rather than relying on isolated numerical thresholds
• Historical graduate outcomes alone are not relied upon without reference to current arrangements

Why this matters for today’s applicants

Students researching medical schools often encounter:

• Testimonials from graduates who qualified many years ago
• Statements referencing earlier GMC assessment practices
• Assurances that may no longer reflect how applications are reviewed today
• While such information may have been accurate at the time, past success does not guarantee future eligibility. The GMC assesses applications against the standards and expectations in force at the time of application, not those that applied previously.

What students should clarify before enrolling

If UK practice is part of your long-term plan, it is reasonable — and necessary — to ask:

• Does this programme align with how overseas qualifications are assessed today, not historically?
• Will I be eligible to register with the local medical council in the country where I graduate in order to enter a recognised internship or foundation-level training programme?

Asking these questions before enrolling can prevent significant misunderstandings later.

SME guidance

At Study Medicine Europe (SME), we encourage students to evaluate medical programmes based on current regulatory expectations — not historical assumptions.

Even if graduates from a particular institution were able to register with the GMC in the past, this does not imply that future graduates will be assessed in the same way. Programmes must continue to meet current expectations, and applications are reviewed accordingly.

📩 If you are unsure how post-2025 changes may affect a specific medical programme or your individual circumstances, we strongly recommend speaking with the SME advisory team before applying.