LOL

Education company that won SQE contract seeks someone who understands the SQE

By on
20

Any takers?

Education giant Kaplan is looking to recruit someone who can help it build a “comprehensive understanding” of how it will deliver the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) — just two days after it secured the contract to implement the still hazily-defined legal education reform.

Last week, Legal Cheek brought you long-awaited news that the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) had selected Kaplan to administer the centralised solicitor super-exam, known formally as the SQE. The company was handed an eight-year deal from the introduction of the assessment, which could be as early as September 2020.

With the ink barely dry on the contract, Kaplan now appears to be looking for a little help in getting its head around the notoriously complex SQE, which remains in developmental phase as the profession grapples with how it should work.

Posted to The Guardian‘s job page, the ad shows the law school is looking to recruit an “SQE Contract Manager” to “build a comprehensive understanding of Kaplan’s obligations under the contract with the SRA.”

Screenshots taken from the The Guardian’s job site

The job listing — posted two days after the SRA went public with the deal on 3 August — goes on to warn potential candidates that the role is “demanding”. Certainly that may prove to be the case, with the lack of clarity around the SQE’s final form having left many legal education experts and law firm learning & development professionals frustrated. Indeed, it’s by no means certain that the all-seeing guru that Kaplan seeks actually exists.

A spokesperson for Kaplan told Legal Cheek:

“This objective in the job description is about the person in the role of contract manager building a comprehensive understanding of the contract, which is standard wording for any manager of a large and complex contract.”

20 Comments

Swap Leveson for the LCJ

It would have been good to see Legal Cheek cover the Lord chief justice’s appeal in the Tommy Robinson case, and provide us with the text of the judgment, as they usually do.

Does anyone know why they did not cover this, or have I got egg on my face ?

(11)(6)

Aspiring billing machine/slave ("solicitor")

Glad to see that my future is safe in the hands of these professionals.

(6)(1)

Anonymous

Any news on Dechart?

(0)(12)

Anonymous

Can you fuck off please?

(17)(1)

Anonymous

No

(3)(2)

Anonymous

It’s Dechert* can’t even spell the name of one the UK’s greatest firms.

(2)(7)

Anonymous

A fvcking joke

(1)(1)

I'll do it.

Pay me £500 per day and I’ll SQE whatever you’d like me to.

But know this, Law-Schools:

I’d kill you for free.

(10)(0)

Just Anonymous

Legal Cheek has missed a number of interesting judgments recently actually.

Off the top of my head, in addition to the Tommy Robinson appeal, there was also the BBC/Sir Cliff Richard privacy judgment and the Supreme Court judgment in James-Bowen, the hearing of which Legal Cheek flagged up here:

https://www.legalcheek.com/2018/03/tort-law-gets-the-lady-hale-treatment-as-supreme-court-hears-vicarious-liability-appeal/

Spoiler: the claimants lost (and in my view, rightfully so).

(13)(1)

Anonymous

You have no life.

(1)(8)

Just Anonymous

I post regularly on Legal Cheek. I think that’s a given…

(20)(0)

Anonymous

Yeh m8 me too actually. Didn’t mean to attack you. I need to get outta this profession.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)

Alisha

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(5)(4)

JD Partner

Brilliant idea. If it doesn’t work out with him you are very welcome here.

(5)(1)

Anonymous

I hope this goes to the Career Conundrum series

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Deserves its own post on here. Far more believable than the usual “I have offers from every magic circle and US firm but need legalcheek readers to help me decide”

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Would be the same if Crapita had got the contract.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Legal Shite

(0)(0)

Anonymous

It is such a shame to see so many puerile comments being made given the risks the SRA are making to the profession and education.

The SRA have outsourced responsibly for the profession for eight years to a entity that has not only failed to make it in the legal education market but has also field to cover itself in glory with the centrally set assessment it already runs. This advertisement is laughable, surely the due diligence undertaken as part of the tender process has clearly identified specifications, including key roles? Did Kaplan not have even an internal candidate to promote from within to this key position?

Surely it is time to stop this madness….

(2)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories