Students testing on computers
getty
The Membership Mirage: Dues vs. Dominance
Founded 1900 to democratize college access, the College Board now straddles an uncomfortable line between its nonprofit mission and corporate-scale revenues. While technically structured as a member organization—with 6,000 high schools and colleges paying annual dues—its financial reality tells a different story.
The math reveals a stark imbalance. Since its inception, cumulative membership dues pales next to the billions reaped from SATs and AP exams since 1990. This reliance on testing revenue has reshaped the organization's priorities, transforming it from a collaborative membership alliance into a de facto corporate entity with a testing monopoly.
The Profit Playbook: Testing and Underpaid Labor
Two strategies underpin the College Board’s financial dominance. First, its testing empire operates like a well-oiled machine. The SAT suite—taken by 2 million students annually—generates $200–300 million from base fees and ancillary charges like $15 score reports. Meanwhile, the Advanced Placement (AP) program, which administered 5 million exams at $99 each in 2025, rakes in nearly $500 million, supplemented by millions from course materials and teacher training . Even middle schoolers are monetized through the PSAT 8/9, an exam for 13-year-olds that locks schools into multi-year testing contracts.
Second, Perhaps most ethically fraught is its reliance on underpaid educators. Teachers grade AP exams for about $30 per hour—less than half the rate of private tutors—similar to the honorarium paid to SAT and AP proctors. Schools generally pay the cost of proctoring the PSAT.
School districts continue paying teachers’ salaries during school-based testing, such as the PSAT and AP’s. The College Board separately compensates AP proctors and some districts retain the funds, arguing that instructors are already on the payroll. For districts, the arrangement carries a hidden cost: they receive no reimbursement for salary expenses during proctoring hours, effectively subsidizing the administration of these exams. Compounding the issue is the significant loss of classroom instructional time—a resource critical to student outcomes—which translates to an additional, often overlooked, toll on both districts and learners. This labor model saves the College Board millions of dollars annually, often subsidizing profits through public school budgets.
Mission Drift: When A Nonprofit Prioritizes Market Share
Recent controversies highlight how financial incentives increasingly override educational goals. The 2025 digital SAT rollout was plagued by technical failures, the launch stranded students mid-test, with critics accusing the College Board of rushing to outpace its rival, the ACT . Technical issues with AP Classroom and this year’s AP Psychology exam further erodes confidence. Its handling of the AP African American Studies curriculum sparked outrage when the organization diluted course content amid political pushback.
The College Board lobbied aggressively to preserve SAT mandates. New America notes that the College Board spends millions each year to lobby state and federal representatives to maintain their market position. This decisions aligns with, according to Pro Publica, CEO David Coleman’s over $2.5 million compensation package—triple the average for nonprofit leaders—raising questions about whom the organization truly serves.
The AP Paradox: Equity Leader or Gatekeeper?
The Advanced Placement program embodies the College Board’s contradictions. While studies show AP courses improve college readiness for underserved students, barriers persist. Exams cost $99 each—a burden for low-income districts—and recent recalibrating of test scores have sparked concerns about score inflation. “Do the changes in performance mean that students are more qualified, or that the tests are easier?,” notes Jon Boeckenstedt, former Vice Provost for Admissions at Oregon State University.
Moreover, schools often narrow curricula to align with AP frameworks. AP’s benefits are real but uneven. The program’s success hinges on equitable access, yet the College Board profits from the very inequities it claims to address. The College Board does offer discounts for documented low income students, but the over $50 fee is still steep for low-income students. As Doyoon Lee comments in the LA Times, “This financial barrier is particularly challenging for students from low-income families, who may already be struggling to meet basic educational expenses.”
The Bottom Line: Helpful or Harmful?
The College Board’s legacy is a study in contrasts. On one hand, AP courses correlate with higher college graduation rates, and standardized metrics help colleges evaluate applicants across diverse educational backgrounds. On the other, its products perpetuate systemic inequities. SAT scores, for instance, continue to be highly correlated with family income. At the same time, the PSAT 8/9 exemplifies profit-driven priorities, subjecting 13-year-olds to high-stakes testing with few studies showing evidence of academic benefit.
Prominent among these issues is the organization's labor exploitation. By outsourcing proctoring and grading to underpaid educators, the College Board extracts value from public schools while privatizing profits—a dynamic that mirrors gig economy practices more than educational stewardship.
Reform or Revolt? The Path Ahead
The College Board must undergo a radical transformation to reclaim its nonprofit mission. Some possible reforms include having executive pay should align with nonprofit norms (under $500,000), not corporate benchmarks. Testing for students younger than 16 ought to be removed, which would free schools from policies that not only can be costly but also may not be the best fit for students’ development. Proctoring and grading labor must be fairly compensated.
Until these reforms materialize, the organization’s 125-year legacy will remain shadowed by a question at the heart of its identity: Who benefits most—students or shareholders?
The College Board’s nonprofit status hinges on a delicate balance—one increasingly tilted toward Wall Street, not classrooms. As education evolves, stakeholders must demand accountability from an organization that shapes millions of futures.
Note: I have reached out to the College Board for an opportunity to respond.
Note: As a School Counselor and Guidance Director, I was the test administrator for both the SAT and AP for over twenty years each.
Note: 6/27: This article has been edited to remove a section where the data could not be independently verfied and a quote was misattributed.