China’s Graduate Dormitory Shortage Sparks Housing Crisis Amid Rapid Enrollment Surge

The problem first entered the public arena in December 2023, when a wave of social‑media posts and news stories began to highlight that a growing number of universities were no longer guaranteeing on‑campus accommodation for all graduate students. The issue was most pronounced for professional master’s programmes—known in Chinese as “专硕”—and for students on part‑time or “定向就业” tracks, who traditionally have been accorded less priority in university housing assignments.

By early 2024, the policy shift was evident on official admission brochures. Peking University and Beijing Normal University, two of the nation’s most prestigious institutions, openly stated that they would not provide dormitory space for certain categories of graduate students. The disclosures sparked a cascade of commentary on platforms such as Weibo, where users lamented the added expense of seeking off‑campus rentals and questioned the wisdom of expanding enrolment without parallel investment in infrastructure.

A snapshot of the scale of the phenomenon emerged from university admission materials compiled through 2024. At least nine universities, most of them located in first‑ and second‑tier cities, had eliminated guaranteed dormitory provision for full‑time professional master’s students. The figure swelled to roughly 25 universities that omitted housing for non‑full‑time or “定向就业” candidates. By September 2025, the trend had deepened: Tsinghua University’s latest master’s brochure echoed similar language, signalling that the practice has moved from isolated cases to a broader, albeit unofficial, policy across the elite tier of Chinese higher education.

The human cost of the shortage is stark. Graduate students who once relied on low‑cost, campus‑managed rooms are now forced into a competitive off‑campus market where rents have surged, especially in megacities where land is at a premium. For scholars from modest backgrounds, the added financial burden can render postgraduate study effectively unaffordable, widening the gap between the privileged and the under‑served. Moreover, the physical condition of the existing dormitories is a source of concern. Reports of aging construction, poorly maintained facilities and, in some cases, mould‑infested rooms—such as the widely circulated account of 18 students crammed into a damp dormitory at Hunan Normal University—have amplified anxieties about student health and safety.

Beyond the individual, the shortage threatens the broader appeal of graduate programmes. Prospective applicants, already weighing the prospect of years of intensive study, now have to factor in the uncertainty of securing decent housing. The deterrent effect could erode the diversity and quality of the applicant pool, especially for professional master’s tracks that draw heavily from the working‑class demographic.

University administrators are wrestling with a complex set of constraints. Enrolment figures have risen sharply in recent years, driven by a national push to cultivate more research talent and meet the demands of a rapidly upgrading economy. Yet the physical boundaries of many campuses—particularly those embedded in dense urban districts—limit the feasibility of constructing new residence halls. Land acquisition, planning approvals and construction timelines often lag far behind the pace of admissions.

In response, some institutions have adopted stop‑gap measures. A handful of universities have begun renting entire off‑campus student dormitory complexes, effectively outsourcing accommodation to private operators. Others are encouraging professional‑degree students to secure housing independently, while local students are being nudged to commute from their family homes. A few campuses have also tried to squeeze more capacity out of existing rooms by adding extra beds, a solution that critics argue merely amplifies overcrowding.

The controversy has ignited a wider policy debate about the role of government in higher education and urban development. Observers on Weibo have repeatedly asked, “Who approved the recruitment of so many post‑graduates without the hardware conditions for accommodation?” The criticism points to a perceived disconnect between the Ministry of Education’s expansion targets and local authorities’ ability to provide the necessary support services. Analysts suggest that without coordinated policy adjustments—whether through direct funding for student housing, zoning incentives for university‑adjacent construction, or a re‑balancing of enrolment caps against infrastructure capacity—the mismatch will only worsen.

Regional disparities add another layer of complexity. In first‑tier cities such as Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, the high cost of land and the scarcity of vacant plots make new dormitories especially costly. In contrast, universities in second‑tier or inland cities face fewer land constraints but may lack the financial clout to develop large‑scale housing projects. The unevenness risks creating a two‑tier system in which students in wealthier regions enjoy better living conditions while those in less affluent locales bear the brunt of the shortfall.

Public sentiment on social media reflects a mix of frustration, sarcasm and weariness. One user quipped, “Enrollment expansion is fierce like a tiger, dorms are crowded like mice,” while another lamented, “Graduate students don’t even earn as much as internet celebrities—what’s the point of studying if basic needs aren’t met?” Calls for accountability have grown louder, with suggestions that university leaders should experience “ideal accommodation” themselves before making policy decisions.

The situation is more than a logistical hiccup; it is a barometer of how China’s rapid educational expansion interacts with urban reality and social equity. As the number of graduate students continues to climb, the pressure on dormitory space will intensify unless a concerted effort is made to align enrolment strategies with tangible support for student welfare. The coming months will likely see intensified negotiations between universities, municipal governments and the central education ministry, as all parties seek a sustainable solution to a problem that, if left unchecked, could undermine the very goals of the country’s higher‑education ambition.