PostsNews

SRA defends use of MCQs in SQE exams

Avatar photo

By Julia Szaniszlo on

26

Regulator says approach is fair, efficient and not just recall

Online exam
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has published a new explainer justifying its use of single best answer multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE1).

The regulator says the MCQ format “does not test simple recall” but instead assesses aspiring lawyers’ ability to apply legal knowledge in a practical way.

According to the SRA, the approach is widely used in other high-pressure professions, such as medicine and accountancy. It argues that the method allows broad coverage of topics, is cost-effective, and ensures consistency because answers are marked by computer rather than examiners. It also points out that SQE2, taken later in the qualification process, does assess more traditional skills like legal drafting, writing and advocacy.

The SQE Hub: Your ultimate resource for all things SQE

The explainer adds that the format is considered “fair”, noting that post-exam analysis shows no evidence of particular questions disadvantaging certain groups of candidates. It also points to data indicating that candidates who perform well in SQE1 usually go on to achieve strong results in SQE2

The SRA’s justification of the MCQ format comes amid criticism from students and academics, some of whom argue it reduces the exam to more of a memory test than an assessment of genuine legal reasoning. Others question whether it reflects the reality of legal practice, where problems rarely come with five pre-set options.

The most recent SQE1 pass rate, released in April, was 56% — up from the record low of 44% in the previous sitting.

26 Comments

Yikes

It’s recent failings make clear that the SRA is not fit for purpose and needs to be abolished and rebuilt from scratch. The previous system should be brought back in the interim.

Reply Report comment
(69)(21)

Mid level associate

I really feel for those doing sqe. Run by a paper pushing inadequate regulator that over charges us all for the privilege (pun not intended). The exams are [redacted] and unfit for purpose. Woke has plagued the sra too long.

If i had to do sqe, would not bother. Feel worse for those paying from their own pockets to the churn machines known as BPP/ulaw

Reply Report comment
(36)(7)

Yeah but

What does woke have to do with it? This is the most un woke exam ever it’s resulted in less % underrepresented groups accessing the profession than before

Reply Report comment
(16)(3)

No buts

Shows your ignorance. The SQE was brought in at the instigation of the woke DEI crowd to boost the all powerful diversity numbers and then watered down in difficulty because having to understand long complex sentences apparently resulted in poorer pass rates from target DEI groups.

Reply Report comment
(12)(15)

Anon

Wasn’t it brought in to allow smaller firms (that didn’t have the capacity for a structured training contract) to train their own junior talent? I hate the SQE too much I don’t think it’s that simple for why it was brought in

Reply Report comment
(6)(2)

Nona

The woke/DEI momentum carried it through the approval process. It also led to the watering down of the written tests because checking future solicitors could understand long complex English sentences was unfair on those who struggled to understand them. Which was nuts.

Anonymouse

You have very strong opinions about an exam you haven’t sat or even revised for? What is your basis for “the exams being [redacted] and unfit for purpose”?

Reply Report comment
(6)(3)

LPC and SQE survivor

Honestly, every time I see the word “woke” thrown into a sentence, I know I’m about to read something wildly off the mark. The idea that the SQE was introduced as some kind of “woke” diversity initiative is simply wrong.

The actual reason the SQE came in was because the SRA had to step in and rescue the profession from the grip of money-spinning universities (think BPP, ULaw, and co.) who were effectively gatekeeping the LPC. They designed the LPC in a way that allowed virtually everyone to pass eventually. And then, once LPC was completed, if you had a few connections or found a place at a tiny firm, you could qualify — often with very inconsistent levels of ability.

The SQE, for all its flaws, was a smart move in principle: one central, rigorous standard for everyone, regardless of where they studied. That’s how it should be in a serious profession.

That said, the SRA has also made some pretty spectacular mistakes along the way, such as:
1. Handing the whole assessment to Kaplan — a single provider with well-known issues;
2. Failing to produce a proper syllabus or standard textbook — no serious professional qualification operates on a vague outline alone;
3. Lack of transparency in SQE2 marking, which leaves candidates guessing how their performance is judged.

So yes, there’s plenty to criticise about the SQE — but “woke” isn’t one of them. If anything, it’s an overdue attempt to set a proper benchmark for qualification rather than letting the LPC system limp on as a glorified cash cow.

Reply Report comment
(9)(2)

Anonymous

I acknowledge the fact that the SQE is supposed to be very hard, as it should be, considering it is such a valued profession. Having passed SQE1, I also see the value of the current MCQ format well, but at the moment, it seems impossible for the SRA to actually evaluate and assess some of the shortcomings of the process, and actively take into consideration the procedural problems that people have with the exams.

There’s a lack of available past papers (which is understandable if they actually reuse questions tbf), and the contrast in difficulty of the SRA sample Qs compared to the actual exam is quite stark, which forces people to spend more and more money on external mock exams, which can take quite a toll on non-sponsored students.

Let’s hope they provide individual pass rates for course providers for the latest results. Also, the vagueness of the specification causes different providers to provide different levels of detail, which could cause some students to have a severe disadvantage on exam day. Personally, I think the MCQ format has value and the content allows you to think and problem solve, but the lack of acknowledgement of any shortfalls by the SRA really annoys me.

Reply Report comment
(36)(1)

SQE finisher

Thank you! You are the first comment I’ve seen who articulates the problem very well. I really fail to see why current discourse regarding the SQE needs to keep being about its difficulty or the fact that it is organised in an MCQ format.

The real problems, as you say, are the organisational shortcomings on behalf of the SRA (175 wrong results, crashing computers, etc.), the obscurity of the FLK specification, and the SRA’s inherent lack of self-evaluation.

I say this as someone who sat and passed the SQE1 on my first try while working full-time (& coming from outside the UK). The level of difficulty is manageable and should be kept as high as reasonably required. However, the stress surrounding the exam is needlessly inflated due to the SRA’s shortcoming in providing clear expectations and value for money in terms of testing arrangements.

Reply Report comment
(23)(0)

MC Trainee

Let us be realistic. A lot of the people that failed the SQE (particularly multiple times) probably did not work hard / smart enough. It is a hard exam – perhaps the hardest I have undertaken, but it is not impossible. Statistics show that MOST people pass first time. Agreed that the SRA could be better, agreed that SQE is perhaps rather expensive, but DISAGREE that a hard exam is the issue here.

This will be an inflammatory take, unfortunately… but t’is truth

Reply Report comment
(38)(13)

Anonymous

I dont think you can quite classify the exam as being ‘passed by most’ when its pass rate hovers around 50%. I do wonder if you have considered people who work full time in law/any sector whilst studying. It is incredibly difficult to fit the content in when working 35+ hours a week. I dont think difficulty is the issue most people have, as opposed to format as discussed in the article.

Reply Report comment
(25)(5)

My clogs r clever

I worked full time as a paralegal in a busy London firm with my own caseload whilst studying for the SQE. I didn’t do my undergrad in law, I just self-taught for the SQE using the ULaw textbook and a friend’s revision app. My firm gave me just one day of study leave.

I still passed all of the SQE exams on my first attempt in the first quintile. It’s difficult and the format is definitely intense but not impossible.

Reply Report comment
(23)(8)

Unconvinced by SQE

That is a very impressive achievement, and I hope your firm and other firms who might employ you in the future give you due credit.
But, your legal knowledge, while enough to pass SQE, will not be adequate for providing soundly based legal advice to clients. Cramming the core law subjects in with half the LPC areas and setting a load of MCQs on the whole lot together is not the way to assess whether someone is good enough to be a solicitor. Sure, you don’t need to have studied jurusprudence, or Roman law, but you do need to have studied Equity and Trusts, Land law, Tort, Contract etc for at least a year first, before studying the practical business-end stuff that formed the LPC and now forms half the SQE – the basics of that take at least another 6 solid months, if you leave out electives. I’ve seen the SQE prep courses, all 10 months of them, and they are inadequate in terms of legal expertise.

Reply Report comment
(3)(10)

clogs

Interesting that you say that my legal advice “will not be adequate for providing soundly based legal advice to clients” when my work shows the opposite. I’m an award-winning solicitor with a successful practice. Have you sat the SQE?

Ines

Hard does not necessarily mean good or fit for purpose. Chewing on broken glass is hard too. If you would like to defend the SQE, I would invite you to actually engage with the criticisms of the SQE rather than be dismissive

Reply Report comment
(12)(4)

City Trainee

I agree. SQE1 is supposed to be brutal. It’s a filter, not a finishing school. MCQs test breadth quickly and without examiner bias. Medicine and accountancy do the same. The real practice-based test is SQE2. Complaints usually come from those who failed. If you can’t survive the grind of SQE1, you won’t survive corporate law.

Reply Report comment
(3)(5)

NH

MCQs or SBAQs are part of the problem of SQE 1.

The SQE assessment method combined with
– the huge volume of content to know
– the large range of topics to know ie 14 legal areas over two days
– the testing of niche areas rarely found in practice in those topics
– an unclear SQE specification
– an incomplete SQE specification in a particular topic eg criminal law there is no s’xual offences taught yet this is an area that many criminal Solicitors practice
– the lack of time to answer questions in the assessment (90 SBAQs in a 2 hour 1/2 morning sitting and then another 90 SBAQs in the afternoon)
– in any given sitting there are 90 SBAQ being asked on different areas requiring mental agility (180 in the day) – thus a candidate having to go from one area tested to another completely different area
– the poor conditions when taking the SQE – no drink or having to travel miles to a different city or town
– the disruption when taking the assessment in various centres
– the huge consequences for a candidate if they fail incl cost implications makes the SQE not fit for the purpose it was designed to do – increase access to the profession.

For the reasons above and in addition, the format of SQE1 together with separate issues for SQE 2 assessments does not prepare a candidate to be a competent day 1 solicitor.

Can and do people pass – yes
But ask those same people are they exhausted and burnt out by the SQE experience and many would say yes. It should not be like this !

If the SRA continues with this SQE experiment then it’s needs to be open
– create a book on content to know
– release pass papers en masse

My suggestion to provide access to the legal profession is
– keep the LPC as an option with some amendments (MAiN)
– reduce the number of topics for SQE 1
– group SBAQs into topics in the assessment

My warning to the SRA
– you are putting people off from becoming Solicitors for all the reasons above and due to the SQE pass/fail rate and the increasing fees so only those who have money, time, and who are adept at answering MCQs, have a good memory and who are of a particular group will take SQE assessments.

The SRA should also know moreover
– they are harming many students dreams of joining the profession and for some seriously affecting their mental health and well being.

KEEP the LPC and CHANGE SQE before someone self harms because the way the SRA have designed SQE!!!

Time to change course!

Reply Report comment
(14)(5)

AP

As someone who recently passed SQE1, I think SRA need to consider the following reforms:

1. Scrap all tax content – it is unnecessarily stressful and complicated. I didn’t even bother learning half of it!
2. Consider combining the FLK results so students need a composite score of 600 to pass – meaning if they fall short in one exam, they can ‘save’ their pass mark through performing better in the other one. Statistically FLK2 is harder, so this will help a lot of people whilst not being too “soft”, as the mark to pass remains the same.
3. Consider including a 10 min break in each FLK session. The exams are so intense, and I think students would perform better if they had a short break in each session to get water, recompose or use the toilet etc.
4. Improve the SRA sample questions. I found ReviseSQE questions were most accurate for the record.

For all those sitting the SQE1, you’ve got this!

Reply Report comment
(11)(1)

clogs

Huh? There’s a 60 minute break after approx 2.5 hours.

Reply Report comment
(3)(0)

Distracted

MCQ exams are fine. I say this as somebody who passed the most recent sitting. Ultimately, understanding of black-letter law is essential to work as a solicitor.

The problem mentioned in the article is the inconsistency. The pass rate for the SQE1 exam shouldn’t soar up 12% from one sitting to the next. All examinees should sit a similar difficulty level of exam no matter when they take it. For almost 1 in 8 people, the difference between a pass or fail is whether they sat in January or July. Kaplan needs to do a much better job ensuring the consistency of the exam.

Difficult MCQ exams are acceptable. An inconsistent exam that soars and nosedives in difficulty/pass rate is not acceptable.

Reply Report comment
(14)(1)

Someone who reads

That’s not how the pass works… the pass rate varies because the standards of student is different- for example most sponsored students sit in March. They do (and it’s about the only thing they have got right) standardise the pass rate.

Reply Report comment
(0)(0)

Sincerely, a Past (and Current) SQE 1 Sitter

I am not one to complain about how much work it takes to become a lawyer. I’ve been studying law for five consecutive years and just received my SQE 1 results.

I failed FLK 1 and passed FLK 2 with dead-on the score I needed to pass.

These exams are ridiculous. As a Trainee Solicitor, I am extremely competent and able to apply the law correctly with the resources I have surrounding me. I have never once been expected to recall bits and pieces knowledge like the SQE does – especially for FIFTEEN topics?! It’s insane!

I was under so much stress that I was hospitalised, and now I have to go through it all again and pay another £1k to sit an exam I have absolutely no faith in passing.

I agree SBAQs are a great way to go, but the entire systems need to be reformed before aspiring lawyers in England and Wales give up before they even sit them.

Reply Report comment
(9)(5)

Nigel will makes things better

If you can’t stand the heat. Being able to handle challenging tasks is part of the job. If it sends you to hospital then the you might want to consider your career choices.

Reply Report comment
(0)(7)

Future SQE taker

This is the core of being a good lawyer beeing able to apply core legal principles to a client problem. Those who find this hard will struggle being good lawyers.
I am in the process of preparing to sit the SQE and the MCQ format appeals to me very much as it promises a practical approach to legal world.
I don’t expect it to be an easy exam but if SRA deems it to be a fair format than I am onboard with that and I fully embrace it.
Good luck to me and to all of those sitting the SQE.

Reply Report comment
(1)(4)

Anonymous

I failed the SQE 1…still dwelling if I will resit next year. If I do, it will be only FLK1 as cannot afford both. I was so close to passing. Consequently, that hit me really hard. It was such an emotional ordeal. Well done to the ones who

Reply Report comment
(1)(0)

Join the conversation

Related Stories

news SQE Hub

SQE2 pass rate hits record 82%

2,753 students sat latest assessment

Aug 28 2025 8:54am
10
news SQE Hub

‘My 10 point plan for SQE reform’

Thom Brooks, professor of law and government at Durham University, puts forward his recommendations for overhauling the SQE

Jun 30 2025 7:33am
29
news SQE Hub

Future trainee launches petition for reform of the SQE, citing mental and physical health concerns

New training regime slammed by TC holder

Jul 31 2025 3:34pm
77