On 25 January 2025 the 270th anniversary was marked not only of the founding of Moscow University, but also of the gymnasium attached to it (later known as the Academic Gymnasium). The gymnasium was created as part of the original “Project for the Establishment of Moscow University”, and its opening in fact preceded the regular delivery of lectures for university students. Throughout the 18th century and the early 19th, it was precisely the gymnasium — by virtue of the size of its student body — that in many respects shaped the ways of the university interacting with society. The gymnasium existed from 1755 to 1812. It occupied a substantial portion of the Main Building of Moscow University, but it was closed after the Moscow fire of 1812, having lost its premises. In 2016 the gymnasium was re-established within the structure of the contemporary Moscow University. This event raises questions of continuity of traditions and of historical memory, both within the university and with regard to the memory of the oldest secondary school in Russia more generally. The present study is directed toward a discussion of these issues. The article examines the principal milestones in the history of the Academic Gymnasium, including the distinctive features of its curriculum, its financing, and the social composition of its pupils. It shows how the experience of the university gymnasium has been drawn upon in the recent history of Moscow State University. The study sets out the main aims embedded in the modern educational process, the parameters of study, and the specific character of students’ project work, and it notes both parallels and divergences between these and their historical prototypes. In the context of creating a youth museum exhibition in the gymnasium devoted to the history of this educational institution, the article presents certain traditions transmitted across generations and newly revived. It also highlights the contribution of the gymnasium to the contemporary history of the university. The conclusion underscores the signifi cance of the historical memory of the gymnasium both for its pupils and for the broader development of the historiography of secondary and higher education in Russia.