The Advanced Placement (AP) program, created in 1952, is presented as a tool to expand educational opportunity by providing high school students with access to college-level coursework. The program offers rigorous classes and standardized examinations, allowing students to earn college credit and sometimes extra GPA points depending on the school.

Over time, the program has grown substantially, becoming one of the most prominent initiatives designed to broaden access to higher education. It is supposed to be especially advantageous for those who have been historically underrepresented — a shift from the original philosophy of AP as an elitist program for “superior” students at exclusive, wealthy, suburban high schools. High schools historically had prerequisites such as minimum GPA requirements, standardized test scores, or teacher recommendations (Finn and Scanlan 42) in order to maintain the quality of the courses.

The AP program has grown immensely — from 532 students in 1954 to over 5 million exams administered in 2018 to nearly three million students (Finn and Scanlan 2). However, the massive increase in participation raises the issue of whether the AP program is a positive indicator that more students are succeeding, or experiencing a “watering-down effect” (Schneider 822) that makes the course less challenging for advanced students.

The statement is a recommendation for all high schools, reflecting the mechanisms through which institutions have attempted to increase inclusivity and equity. State mandates, such as New York City’s “AP for All” policy that requires all schools — including those in underserved neighborhoods — to provide a minimum number of AP courses (Finn and Scanlan 73) expand geographical reach.

Many states and philanthropic organizations have incentives such as subsidized exam fees for low-income students and the National Math and Science Initiative, which provide extra tutoring and financial awards to both students and teachers in order to encourage both participation and success (Finn and Scanlan 59). Many high schools have also removed prerequisite barriers such as minimum GPA and parent permission, which historically disadvantaged Black and Hispanic students through “racialized tracking.”

The AP program has evidence for the correlation between AP participation and positive college outcomes. Studies using data from the College Board found that students who earn qualifying scores (3 or higher) on AP exams tend to have higher college GPAs, higher retention rates, and a greater likelihood of graduating within four years (Finn and Scanlan 234).

The main debate scholars have about AP courses is participation versus success: is it better to have higher participation rates with lower passing rates, or high pass rates with limited access? Finn and Scanlan (2019), Kolluri (2018), Schneider (2009), Bleske-Rechek (2024), and Phillips and Lane (2021) all address this issue.

Schneider argues that pushing for equity led to a “watering-down effect” (822) that makes the program too easy for highly advanced students, and Phillips and Lane found that AP performance, rather than enrollment, is a stronger predictor of college outcomes — both evidence for the side of higher pass rates. On the other side, underrepresented students use the AP program as a way to advance their education to catch up to historically advantaged peers, making enrollment parity critically important.

Another issue is that some schools may increase AP enrollment to prevent the “flight” of high-performing teachers and white students to other schools, rather than to serve marginalized students (Iatorola 342). Questions also remain unanswered about the causality of the AP program: although AP could be the cause of better college outcomes, it could also be a mere reflection of the pre-existing motivation and ability of students who choose to enroll.