Kaplan apologises for SQE2 marking ‘error’

Avatar photo

By Thomas Connelly on

11

Exclusive: ‘Isolated’ issue with ‘small number’ of exam papers

Assessment provider Kaplan has apologised to students after it identified an “isolated error” with the marking of a “small number” of exam papers on the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE).

In an email sent to some students yesterday afternoon, and seen by Legal Cheek, Kaplan confirms it has identified an “isolated error” in the marking of a “few” exam scripts for the April sitting of SQE2.

The error relates specifically to a small number students who achieved low scores on Business Case and Matter Analysis (BCMA), one of the sixteen “stations” that form SQE2.

Kaplan goes on to confirm that exam papers with the error will be re-marked and, once approved by the assessment board, any new mark will be communicated to students.

The email continues: “Current information, on the basis of the investigations we have so far performed (but not yet concluded) suggests that any changes in marks will be upwards not downwards and that very few marks will be changed.”

The 2024 Law Schools Most List

Kaplan goes says it will also conduct a “broader review” of the set of BCMA scripts within which the error was found to check that there was no wider impact.

The SQE assessment provider says there is no information to suggest there are any further errors and that students preparing to re-take SQE2 next month should prepare as normal.

The email also reveals that a number of students had already raised concerns about the marking relating specifically to BCMA. Kaplan did confirm that there were no “IT or technology related issues”.

Students will be informed about the outcome of the review and any changes in marks by 13 October, Kaplan says.

A spokesperson for Kaplan told Legal Cheek:

“We have been in touch with any candidates who may have been affected and apologised for the uncertainty this has caused.”

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) said: “Even though very few candidates are likely to be affected, this error is still disappointing. Our immediate priority is making sure the issue is addressed. Candidates need peace of mind that they have got the result they deserve. We are making sure that happens.”

They continued:

“There are rigorous assurance processes in place for the SQE. We are making sure Kaplan is working to further improve them, so we can make sure that if there is an error, it is identified sooner.”

11 Comments

Concerned citizen

Incorrect marking, issues with bookings, computer glitches, inadequate and inaccurate information …

The good thing about the mess that has accompanied the SQE is that it destroys any pretence that the SRA is a competent regulator, even before one qualifies.

Defund the SRA

Will the SRA be demanding Kaplan to pay fair compensation? Oh, they’re too busy finding trainees to strike off.

Archibald O'Pomposity

“The good thing about the mess that has accompanied the SQE is that it destroys any pretence that the SRA is a competent regulator, even before one qualifies.”

Don’t be ridiculous. Of course a marking error affecting a handful of students doesn’t destroy any belief that the SRA is a competent regulator. Stop catastrophising.

Curious Bystander

Do you have insight?

How many is a handful? I heard up to 360?

Either way, I hope the SRA is keeping an eye on the overall experience of students.

Anonymous

Agree. It’s also about the catalogue of errors – some not so serious, some very serious.

I’m not even sure if there has been an unblemished, totally smooth sitting of the SQE yet.

C

Shambles complete shambles. Lpc has its issues but at least it weren’t like this.

Anonymous

Hold on a moment. Kaplan have stated they’ll remark papers and provide new grade marks. The SQE pass rate is based on a percentage average. Remarking papers previously marked zero is going to raise the average, meaning there will be SQE candidates that didn’t pass after all. It’s unlikely Kaplan can reverse their decision to pass candidates, so the pass mark will remain incorrect. This is an embarrassing mess for Kaplan and the SRA. They owe affected candidates compensation, refunds or resits if only for Kaplans awful response emails to candidates who genuinely queried the error. Kaplan’s email gaslight candidates into believing they’d performed poorly, and should they have it in them (financially and mentally) to challenge further, they could only do so subject to further fees. Disgusting really. Do better Kaplan! SRA, it’s time to step up and have this mess sorted out.

Anon

Sorry – potentially dumb question here from someone who isn’t very familiar with pass marks etc. but wants to understand your comment!

So, what you’re saying is that, if Kaplan increases the scores of some/all of the affected candidates, the overall pass mark may go up, meaning other candidates who only just passed could fall below the new, correct pass mark?

If that happens, the SRA/Kaplan will have to decide whether to fail any candidates who fall below the new, correct pass mark or stick to the old, incorrect pass mark, which allowed failed or “non-competent” candidates to pass?

Archibald O'Pomposity

“If that happens, the SRA/Kaplan will have to decide whether to fail any candidates who fall below the new, correct pass mark or stick to the old, incorrect pass mark, which allowed failed or “non-competent” candidates to pass?”

If this arithmetical reasoning reflects how success is determned, then “non-competent” is the wrong term (although probably true in reality). It would mean, however, that candidates who passed very narrowly might – after remarking – find themselves, again narrowly, on the wrong side of the borderline, due to the increase in % average and corresponding increase in the threshold to gain a pass. This doesn’t render them “incompetent”, or, more correctly, doesn’t render them any less incompetent than they were before the remark.

Anonymous

It appears that the exam does not assess candidates against the competencies required for a ‘Day 1 Solicitor’, but rather whether you are in the top 80% (or so) of your sitting. There are probably statistics available from the GDL showing which sittings are more competitive than others. This could be a new unintended strategy for candidates to consider.

Someone who can read the website

Pass marks are set by the SRA and Kaplan based on how hard they perceive the paper to be, not based on marks.

Join the conversation

Related Stories

news SQE Hub

53% of students pass latest SQE1

Up slightly on previous sitting

Sep 25 2023 6:27am
23
news SQE Hub

‘I taught myself SQE – here’s how I got on’

Without law degree

Sep 12 2023 8:52am
7
news SQE Hub

SQE2: Latest pass rate sits at 77%

Up slightly

Aug 22 2023 1:30pm
10