Thom Brooks, professor of law and government at Durham University, puts forward his recommendations for overhauling the SQE
Legal Cheek invited me to speak at its first LegalEdCon in 2018 on a panel about the SRA’s planned SQE. While it seemed certain to be launched, there was some uncertainty about when exactly that might happen and the impact it might have on law schools and beyond.
Drawing a comparison with the big political debate at the time, I remarked that the SQE sounded a lot like Brexit in some curious ways. First, there did not seem to be widespread calls for a new super exam before plans for a SQE were first proposed.
Secondly, the SQE was presented as a means to solve many big challenges. For example, the first LegalEdCon heard that it might make qualifying cheaper and improve the quality of the newly qualified while improving access to, and diversity within, the profession.
There were other similarities. For instance, it was unclear exactly how the new exam would operate and achieve its lofty goals. We were told at the time ‘Brexit means Brexit’. Likewise, it seemed the SQE meant SQE. The date for when this would happen seemed to move further into the distance. All the while there were concerns raised that the promised benefits might not materialize.
After Brexit came in 2020, the SQE followed soon after in 2021. However, it’s unclear that the SQE has delivered as promised since its freedom day.
Take for example the claim that the SQE would enable better access and transparency, including different SQE provider exam results, which would help drive provider performance, improve student choice and keep costs down. However, since its launch and despite repeated reassurances to the contrary, the SRA has yet to publish pass-rate data for SQE training providers and the affordability, design and quality of the exam itself, an issue rightly flagged by the Legal Services Board.
The available data that I have seen is disappointing. While the pass rate rose to 56% in January, it had fallen to 44% last July. This doesn’t sound great where half or most failing to pass – and still no indication of what a ‘good’ pass rate might look like.
The attainment gap is worse. 50% of white students sit the SQE1 and 70% pass it. 25% of black students sit the SQE1 and 37% pass. This is true at SQE2 too (where the pass rate is over 80% overall): white 84%, black 51%. There is also a gap between independent school educated (70-72%) versus non-selective state school (58%). And some passed even when told they failed, as happened to 175 people last year.
Depending on the preparation course used, some, like the Legal Action Group, claim the SQE has not resulted in significantly reducing costs.
The SQE has happened (and so too Brexit). I’ve been concerned about the SQE from the start and see many of the worries that I and others raised materialising. But as I told LegalEdCon 2025, I don’t think it helpful or productive seven years later to point fingers nor reopen the debate over whether to retain the SQE.
Instead, continuing the Brexit analogy, I argue it is time for a reset with meaningful conversation about how we might the SQE better where various stakeholders work more closely together to get it right.
My 10 point plan for SQE reform:
First, the SRA should consider creating a SQE Advisory Panel. Members might include the recently qualified via the SQE, senior law firm figures and, yes, law professors. (I do not usually make recommendations that I would not personally support delivering.) This Panel can help close the gap between the test takers, test makers and practice to provide an important independent feedback loop on processes and test design beyond anonymous surveys of test takers.
Secondly, the SQE content for exams one and two should be re-examined. Where is law and tech? This is rapidly transforming the sector in ways already profound and will move forward with significant consequences. There should also be a review of what is assessed in each part.
Thirdly, there should be a review into whether an exemption of at least some parts might be advisable and practicable for law graduates. We already know high performing law graduates pass the SQE anyway – and as high as 80% for those with a first class degree. If there were possible, it could widen access further, cut costs and even make sense.
Fourthly, the SRA should consider providing greater financial support for test takers. This might include increasing exam fee discounts that might benefit more relevant individuals. There is no magic money tree for sure, but if support were available it would be widely welcomed. Income received from exam candidates was 21% higher than originally budgeted in 2023/24 reaching £36.7m. This is expected to rise up to £66m for 2024-25 nearly doubling in a year.
Fifthly, there should be more test centres available in the North. While there are various locations for SQE1, there is only Birmingham, Cardiff and Manchester for SQE2. Why not Leeds, York or Newcastle?
Sixthly, there should be a review of reasonable adjustment options for neurodiverse and disabled students. This should include reviewing study resources.
Seventhly, we need greater transparency on the data. This means repeatedly promised and long overdue performance data linked to providers. No more delays. This would benefit from a view of target pass ranges. When is it too high or low?
Eighthly, it would be helpful if data was provided on SQE success and careers. Does smashing the SQE mean a smashing successful career?
Ninthly, this to be published data should be linked to a strategic plan to improve it. Since its introduction, we’ve seen an attainment gap. We know the numbers. So, what’s the plan to improve the outcomes? The SQE’s promise all along is we’d have more data at hand to better guide fixing problems like this. We see the issues. We need to see a plan to fix them.
Finally, there needs to be a more constructive and open engagement with educationalists, providers and the wider legal sector about how we improve the SQE. We all want better access with robust standards. Point scoring is beyond the point.
In conclusion, no one should pretend the SQE is beyond criticism when even the SRA admits there have been ‘teething problems’. At the same time, I don’t think anyone who wants the best for our sector to be satisfied pointing out concerns but not solutions.
My ten point plan for SQE reform is intended to provide some constructive ideas about how some improvements might be supported. It’s time for us all to work together for a common purpose and I hope a reset will be considered.
Thom Brooks is professor of law and government at Durham University.