Most platforms pay you a shrinking slice of a subscription and never ask for your judgement. Here the judgement is the product, and it is the best-paid thing you can do on the platform.
We approve applications by hand and will keep doing so. Expect a reply within five working days.
| Where the money comes from | Your share |
|---|---|
| Assessing a final project | $18.85, flat |
| Subscription revenue — monthly pool, split by completed topics | 35% pool |
| Institutional cohorts — pool, same basis | 30% pool |
| A learner who subscribes through your referral link | 85% of month one |
Twenty reviews in a month is about $377 for roughly thirteen hours — $25 to $37 an hour. It is the highest rate available to you here, deliberately. The scarce thing you offer is judgement, not video.
Learners no longer decide whether to pay for assessment — it is in their plan. More of them submit, so more reviews reach you than under a pay-per-certificate model.
Your dashboard shows your completed-topic count and the month's pool rate. You should not have to take our word for what you are owed.
The promise is ours, not yours. At day three we are alerted; at day four a reserve reviewer takes it and is paid for it. The learner is unaffected.
We cap concurrent enrolments on your courses so the queue matches what you can actually do. A throttle, not a penalty.
It goes to a second reviewer who cannot see your verdict, never back to you. One appeal per submission, on grounds of rubric misapplication only.
Not that you used to, and not that you have read widely about it. The credential's whole value is that a practising professional signed it.
In writing, specifically, to someone who is not yet good at it. Rarer than knowing the subject, and the thing we are actually hiring for.
Or you tell us honestly that you cannot, and we scale enrolments to what you can manage. Both answers are fine. Silence is not.
You are paid $18.85 for every project you assess, exactly as before, out of the subscription rather than a separate purchase. The pool rate is 35% rather than 45% because reviews now come out of the same revenue. In practice most reviewers earn more, because learners no longer weigh up a separate fee before submitting, so more projects reach the queue.
Because the same subscription also funds every review, video delivery, payment processing and support. We modelled it at each plan price before publishing. A higher pool would mean either a smaller review fee or a platform that loses money on engaged learners, and we would rather set a rate we can hold than announce one we would have to cut.
With one well-subscribed course and a steady review queue, roughly $500 to $850 a month. Reviews are the larger part of that. Someone with several popular courses and a full queue earns more, but we are not going to publish a number we cannot back.
Thirty to forty-five minutes for most practitioners once your rubric is good. A vague rubric makes reviews slower and less consistent, which is why we gate on it before publishing.
Courses need teaching material and video is usually part of it — but you upload raw footage and we handle encoding and delivery. You are not expected to be an editor.
Tell us in your application. We keep a reserve reviewer pool for overdue items and for subjects where demand outruns the course author, and it pays the same per review.
Send us a proposed course, your background, and a sample. We reply within five working days.