The Unified State Examination, both praised and feared, feels like something that once held the world in balance and then slipped away. People debated its value—some saying it measured the breadth of knowledge, others claiming it distorted the very meaning of learning. Some called it a harsh judge, others hailed it as the sole doorway to a better life for countless students. The chorus of voices rose against any attempt to shield it from criticism, and then, almost without warning, the exam seemed to shrink in importance, turning pale and faded. It no longer promised certainty. If before a perfect score opened doors with ease, today that certainty is hard to come by. So what happened to the exam that once loomed so large?
A daughter entered college this year, a winner of two national Olympiads in Russian language and literature, earning admission to the philology faculty of a major pedagogical university without taking an entrance exam. The Olympiad path filled many budget places, yet competition remained fierce. In linguistics, winners and prize recipients from the British Olympiad filled the same number of budget spots. A friend entered ITMO to study business informatics through an Olympiad route, and dozens more followed suit, leaving only a single budget seat for USE students in that field.
There is little doubt that the budget places do not always align with individual exam scores. In rankings that include applicants with the right to a budget-supported spot without separate entrance exams, the top positions were not only earned by those with scores above 90 on each test. Real record holders also appeared—students with 300 to 310 points. Three hundred points represent three core subjects at high marks; 310 points reflect the USE score plus personal achievements such as a gold medal, non-core Olympiad wins, a leadership badge, volunteering, and a solid portfolio. In Herzen University, where the daughter had also considered applying, the profile heartrendingly shows a 284 score in a foreign language, placing her far from a guaranteed chance. The reality is plain: top spots sometimes elude those who perform well on paper alone.
Worried voices and frustrated discussions fill the air during admission season. Some insist that targeted admissions and beneficiary quotas were overhauled, while others blame the Olympiads for new corruption. There are claims that Olympiad tasks are sold or answers shared for a fee, and some turn a skeptical eye toward medalists and top scorers who report the same skepticism about the process. It is easy to mock and easy to doubt, but the sentiment runs deeper: legitimate winners can feel left behind by a system that seems to reward status as much as skill.
But there is empathy here too. When a student genuinely tests limits, the strain can feel almost unbearable. If a dream of college becomes as distant as a trip to a far-off planet, it can be hard to maintain faith in the path forward. Yet the picture that unfolds is not purely despair. The country hosts hundreds of universities; thousands chase the idea of movement within higher education. Some pursue a second path through IT training or other technically oriented programs, while others seek fields that may appear less glamorous but hold real promise. The state itself has interests—engineering and technology often come with strong demand, while humanities still hold substantial value, even if the opportunities feel tightly contested. A university with limited budget places can attract students from across the nation, turning a single seat into a crowded prize worth fighting for.
The question then becomes why it is so hard to gain a place in popular faculties with relatively few government-funded spots. The reason, in part, is an arms race that has pushed the USE into a higher tier each year. Scores inch up as students invest more time and money in preparation, often with parental support. The result is not only talent but resources, discipline, and strategy. The average admission score climbs, and a handful of aspirants reach extraordinary heights. The ceiling starts to feel movable, with only a few dozen budget seats at elite universities. The dilemma is how to balance merit with accessibility, quality with opportunity. How should the system adapt to preserve both rigor and fairness?
The system itself is evolving. A growing array of parallel routes exists to achieve admission. Olympiads proliferate, and many universities accept results from these contests as part of a broader assessment. Some fields allow an Olympiad diploma to count toward the USE profile, sometimes adding a modest number of extra points for excellence in non-core areas. The varied landscape means students can show capability through multiple channels, not just a single exam. The movement of Olympiads has grown complex, with different levels and different interpretations of how much weight they should carry. Yet even this complexity can be navigated by a motivated student who explores options and builds a portfolio that reflects genuine interest and achievement.
It is clear that the journey is not just about memorizing facts. Preparation for these competitions, whether the USE or an Olympiad, demands focus, structure, and sometimes a trusted mentor. But there is a curious upside: when a student demonstrates true passion and competence, results can come without extraordinary friction. Talent backed by deliberate practice and curiosity can lead to success, while creative thinking can yield outcomes that defy conventional expectations. That range of possibilities is a feature, not a bug, of a modern admissions ecosystem that values both standard achievement and unique aptitude.
The integrity of assessment remains critical. The spread of exams and the use of diverse testing sites, along with independent review by qualified experts, reduce the chance of tampering. While the risk exists at the most local levels, the broader framework is designed to be resistant to manipulation. The focus is shifting toward a more nuanced understanding of capability rather than a single metric alone. If there is a trend toward new methods, it is a signal that higher education organizations are seeking more balanced, evidence-based ways to evaluate applicants without sacrificing fairness or rigor.
The broader forecast points to continued experimentation with admissions pathways. Some universities are exploring their own supplementary entrance exams or more formal portfolio reviews. The goal would be to harmonize standard testing with performance in related activities, a concept that could shape a more versatile admissions system. It may also lead to a renewed emphasis on the tangible value of knowledge and practical skill, beyond what a single test can measure. In this evolution, personal growth, perseverance, and demonstrated capability will likely remain the most compelling credentials.
Ultimately, a balance may emerge that respects both the USE and the Olympiad, measuring how well a person can solve typical problems while rewarding the ability to approach nonstandard challenges. The duration of study, responsiveness to educational needs, and overall character could become essential components of the admissions equation. If such a balance is found, it could open doors for a broader range of students, including those from regional universities who bring fresh perspective and practical experience to the academic community. The aim would be to recognize talent, promote humanity in education, and ensure that capable, hardworking students are not excluded for reasons beyond their control.
In sum, the debate over budget distribution, fairness, and the future of admissions remains dynamic. The overall takeaway is that the system is adapting rather than collapsing. While changes may feel unsettling, they reflect a broader intention to align higher education with real-world needs and to create opportunities for diverse pathways to success.