Context Medical education has not been immune from forces for globalisation in the contemporary world. At the same time the social accountability of medical schools in addressing local health priorities has been emphasised. This paper explores the global–local tension in medical education through a careful selection of key overview papers. Globalisation Globalisation in medical education has taken two main forms: economic and altruistic. The former includes licensing curricula, recruiting internationally and establishing ‘offshore’ schools or campuses. Altruistic collaborations focus on the spread of learning and educational innovations. Both forms bring benefits but have been subject to critique for their differential impact and focus on educational inputs rather than outputs. Social Accountability Social accountability requires medical schools to direct their activities to local priorities and to serving local health systems. Adoption of the principles of social accountability compels all medical schools to ask questions of their educational programmes and graduate outcomes. However, these are globally interdependent questions and are the intent of some well‐known social accountability collaborations. It is naïve to think that adoption of a social accountability agenda by all medical schools would necessarily reduce global health inequity. A recent Australian example shows that workforce maldistribution, for example, is resistant to even high‐level intervention. Conclusions It is yet too early to fully accept that ‘think global, act local can be turned on its head’. There is much research to be carried out, particularly on the outcomes and impacts of medical education. Establishing cause and effect is a challenge, as is determining whether globalisation or localisation can contribute to greater global health equity. If we are ever to resolve the global–local tension in medical education, we need more evidence on the outcomes of what we do, whether globally or locally inspired. Prideaux shines a light on global vs local tension in medical education, suggesting that we need to determine the outcomes of our programs whether globally or locally inspired.