What the work involves
You receive documents drawn from your own field of study or teaching — lesson plans, curriculum materials, research summaries, syllabi, assignment prompts, student-facing explanations, or model-generated equivalents of these — and assess them against a written rubric. A typical task asks you to judge factual accuracy, pedagogical soundness, and whether the document actually does what it claims to do, then write a short structured justification for your rating. On comparison tasks you rank two or more versions and explain which is better and why, in terms a reviewer who has never seen the document can follow.
Much of the value here is in the written justification, not the score. Projects are calibrated: your ratings are compared against other reviewers and against gold-standard examples, and consistent divergence without clear reasoning is what gets flagged. Expect a good share of Excel and Word work — annotation spreadsheets, tracked-changes edits, structured comment fields — so comfort with those tools is genuinely load-bearing rather than resume filler.
What the platform screens for
Mercor's screen is an AI-led interview followed by profile and document verification. It is looking for: a real domain you can be pressed on, evidence you can apply someone else's rubric rather than your own taste, and honest availability. Expect follow-up questions that drill into a specific claim you made — naming a subject area is not enough; you will be asked what a common error in that subject looks like and how you would explain it to a student.
Logistics
- Fully remote, asynchronous; work is claimed from a queue rather than scheduled
- Volume fluctuates by project — some weeks offer many hours, others few
- Most contributors work 10–20 hours weekly, though this is not guaranteed
- Must be based in the United States, Europe, the UK, or Canada
- Rates in the $80–160/hr band are observed on posted projects and vary by domain scarcity and task type