Returning silver medals to graduates is a rightful step that acknowledges merit beyond the top rank. Such a move values the achievements of second-place recipients as part of a fair appraisal of ability and effort. It signals a maturity in how society recognizes educational success.
A practical expectation is that the silver standard would be set around a range of two to four. Yet the conversation should extend beyond admission into higher education, considering how medals could influence ongoing opportunities and choices in education and student life.
For instance, medal winners might receive preference when securing dormitory placements or when transitioning from contract to funded education streams.
There is a study context in which the institution in question has already approved reductions in the cost of contract-based training for medalists, reflecting a broader policy aim to reward achievement while supporting access to education.
However, there is a tendency to link the return of silver medals with memories of the Soviet era. This raises questions about the objectivity of modern assessment methods and data. Open sources show regional disparities: in Sakhalin, a gold medal is awarded to a relatively small fraction of students, while in some Caucasus regions the ratio is much higher. Regulators would find these numbers revealing, suggesting possible information gaps in remote areas or exceptional pedagogical practices in certain schools that deserve attention. Critics note that the previous system did not tolerate such distortions.
Was there a stronger focus on medalists in the past? Yes, there was a prestige attached to medal laureates that sometimes influenced reputations more than budgets for teaching staff. Today, education policy increasingly ties funding to measurable outcomes, and every ruble in education budgeting comes with performance indicators, some of which relate to graduate medals.
The quality of education in the Soviet era is often remembered as comprehensive, aligned with the end-to-end demands of the entire system. Today, quality criteria are set by national education authorities, and institutions rely on external assessments that cannot be directly adjusted by colleges. It is not surprising that leading universities seek additional screening through exams or interviews to gauge a candidate’s broader cultural and social readiness, rather than relying solely on standardized test results. Yet practice shows that a broader picture is needed beyond exam scores.
The underlying challenge runs deeper. Neither universities nor secondary vocational schools nor the national ministry can reliably predict which specialists will be needed by the economy five years from now. In other words, forward planning remains uncertain. Some observers view this as a side effect of policy frameworks that tilt toward monetary indicators rather than physical capacity, an issue that complicates forecasting for education and workforce needs.
To align modern education with new technological capabilities, it is helpful to supplement financial planning with physical planning. In earlier eras the state acted as the primary client for education, determining in advance the number of engineers, teachers, technicians, and cooks required five years ahead. Critics note that this was achievable even with a sizable non-state sector, yet a cohesive national system ultimately translated workforce needs into concrete educational output. Today, the emphasis shifts to measuring information flow and controlling its uptake, but the core missing piece remains a clear order from the society that is being educated.
Even with the silver medal as a logical and fair impulse, the central problem endures: a responsible educational framework that is driven by state-level planning and accountability remains essential. Without that framework, the reintroduction of silver medals risks becoming a symbolic gesture rather than a lever for meaningful change.
Note: The foregoing presents a perspective on policy direction and does not reflect any single official position. This discussion is intended to illustrate considerations around medal-based recognition and its implications for education systems.