Concerns around delivery, affordability and impact on wellbeing
Four in five aspiring solicitors believe the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is not fit for purpose, a new survey suggests.
The research, conducted by the National Junior Lawyers Division (NJLD) across 476 current and former candidates, points to recurring concerns around cost, delivery and the toll the qualification takes on student wellbeing.
While the fitness for purpose finding is the most eye-catching result, it sits alongside an almost equally negative verdict on cost. Some 82% of respondents do not consider the SQE good value for money, which the report identifies as the single strongest negative finding in the entire survey. Of the 272 respondents who answered the question of whether the SQE is fit for purpose, nearly 80% said it was not.
Nearly half of all respondents (44%) reported spending over £10,000 on the SQE once prep course fees and examination costs are combined, with over three-quarters estimating their total outlay at more than £5,000. While employer sponsorship was the most common funding source (58%), a significant minority are relying on personal savings, family loans or salary to cover costs.
On preparatory courses, The University of Law was the most widely used provider for both SQE1 (31.72%) and SQE2 (32.27%), followed by BPP (24.14% for SQE1; 27.09% for SQE2), BARBRI (22.41% for SQE1; 17.13% for SQE2) and the College of Legal Practice (12.07% for SQE1; 9.16% for SQE2). Nearly 44% of respondents felt their preparatory course prepared them “a good amount” for the exams, though 63% still did not consider courses to offer good value for money, with many describing the experience as largely self-directed study with limited face-to-face teaching.
The assessment process produced its own set of issues. More than half of those who had attempted to book their examinations (53.71%) reported some level of difficulty, from lengthy online queues to a complete absence of available test centres in their region. Nearly half (48%) also experienced problems on examination day itself, including technical failures and inadequate facilities.
Of the 80 respondents who required reasonable adjustments, half reported that they were not provided adequately, with accounts of adjustments being overlooked on the day and notable inconsistency between SQE1 and SQE2 experiences.
Asked to rate the impact of SQE preparation on their wellbeing on a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 represented the most negative effect and 100 the most positive, respondents returned a median score of just 17, with more than three-quarters scoring 30 or below. Many respondents raised concerns around exhaustion, isolation and financial anxiety, with candidates recounting months spent cut off from family and friends.
Harry Clark, chair of NJLD, told Legal Cheek that the organisation is not calling for the SQE to be “scrapped” and that it “recognises that some degree of transitional difficulty was to be expected with a new qualification framework.” However, he added that “the data is clear that certain issues are arising consistently, and candidates deserve a greater degree of transparency. Some of these issues persisted before and after the survey was originally commissioned.”
He continued:
“In the immediate term, that means urgent reviews of the reasonable adjustments process, candidate feedback on failed assessments, and the information available to candidates when selecting a preparatory course provider. Each of these was flagged repeatedly by respondents as inadequate.”
“Beyond that, an independent review of examination costs and the release of more past papers and mark schemes would go a long way to addressing the cost and transparency concerns raised by the overwhelming majority of respondents.”
“The NJLD wants to work with the SRA to fix the issues this report has identified. The starting point for constructive change is greater transparency for candidates across the board.”
oh boo hoo
I also passed the sqe 1 on the first try both in the 1st Q. I do not understand how sad your life must be to post like that.
The exam is most definitely not fit for purpose. The test is too broad and there is too much luck involved with the paper you get. Getting a large mix of questions in a strong/weak to you subject can make the difference between smashing it and just failing.
Just because you passed doesn’t make you the anointed one, rather it means you did work hard but were also a bit lucky. If you can’t recognise that you are on the path to being a great test taker and less than mediocre lawyer.
It is fit for purpose – filtering out the numpties who are unable to pass a basic multiple-choice exam (after 3 attempts) from entering the profession. How dare you assume my gender
Lovely reply. I wonder how you feel such a sense of superiority over something you find easy?
Everything you have said points to passing the SQE being your sole achievement in life. I suggest you learn to think critically and act properly. Otherwise it is unlikely you will ever be successful as a lawyer or as a functioning member of society. Keyboard trolls are too many and are getting displaced by Ai so maybe consider making something else your single best personality.
No ill feelings here but maybe think thoroughly before acting like a child.
You are very silly for this. Just because you passed doesn’t make u smarter than those who did. Just showed you are good with craming information
The number of respondents is not proportional to the numbers that have sat the SQE and therefore the data is flawed. Replies more than likely from those who were negative and not those who had a positive experience. Please only validate surveys from those that have a significant response rate that is commensurate with the proportion who sat the exams. Stop being alarmist
Your assertion that the data is flawed is questionable. Your comment suggests you’re only seeing one side.
Many candidates who did not complete the survey – myself included – still agree with the findings.
It is flawed if the number of responses are not a significant proportion to the number of people who sat the exam. Usually only those with negative experiences respond and as another commenter implied, the questions asked lean to a negative rather than a positive response. It is also not a large enough response to facilitate a change based on the few numbers that replied.
If the number were 20-30%, possibly even 40% of respondents who report the exam is ‘not fit for purpose’ after being put through the wringer of the SQE, your point would carry more weight. Because of course the responses are skewed – those most aggrieved are most likely to respond.
But at 80%, this reflects what an absolute shitsh0w this exam is. It will remain so until they provide a consistent, centralised set of examinable subject matter. There are tremendous inconsistencies across prep providers, so when you sit the exam, no matter how much you prepped, a good 10%+ of questions are new material. No past papers, 5-6 hours for each exam, the Day 1 NQ standard is a joke, and the questions are so long and tricky it’s like Satan himself had a hand. The price is astronomical and out of all proportion to other professional examinations; the prep providers are all against it; the students are teetering on mental health crises.
But they stand by their exam.
Certainly, clarity is required concerning the scope of potential reasonable adjustments. As it happens, after being Called to the Bar, I became intrigued by the change from LPC to SQE and what it may mean practically speaking if a Bar Course graduate or barrister wished to transfer. Accordingly, I spoke to a couple of the above-named SQE providers and the SRA about potential adjustments. I also raised concerns to the SRA concerning the course and exam structure and its potential to worsen barriers to entry to the profession for disabled candidates.
The SQE providers said they would get in contact and never did, even after a chaser email. The SRA entirely disregarded the concerns raised, denying any impact on disabled candidates, and effectively said they wouldn’t comment on prospective candidate adjustments until they had paid for the course. That clearly isn’t the right way to go about assuaging the concerns of prospective SQE candidates, and, in my view, says rather a lot about the SRAs approach to disabled candidates (although, such disdain could well be an ordinary part of communications with the SRA for all I know).
I’m not suggesting that the SQE is necessarily wholly unfit, nor that disabled candidates have been barred from the profession by the course. However, it appears to me that both course providers and the SRA aren’t doing nearly enough to be as transparent and informative as they either ought to be or could be.
Passed and qualified earlier this year. The biggest problems I had were with Kaplan rather than the exam format itself. There are numerous horror stories of them f*cking up and f*cking people over, but they continue to take their fees and fail to learn from their mistakes.
What a bunch of irrelevant questions. If you ask people do you love being put through the mill? The answer will often be not really. The actual question is does the exam actually equip someone for the role of being a solicitor and if so is it any better or worse than the alternatives be that LPC, or before that LSFE.
This is indeed the right question, and unfortunately the SQE route does not in general provide high quality NQs. Many lack the critical reasoning skills and communication skills necessary to perform in practice. Many view the law as a field where there is only ever one correct answer to the problem, and don’t have the curiosity and creativity needed to find the best answer for one’s client.
“Many lack the critical reasoning skills and communication skills necessary to perform in practice.” That’s a pretty broad and unsupported statement.
Is there a link to the survey/report anywhere?
Another big problem is that there’s a lot of ambiguity about what is assessable, so the providers are literally just guessing when they design their prep course curriculum. When i sat the exam there were numerous things that were not in my materials. I still passed comfortably, but it’s enough to make a difference for someone that’s studying/working part time.
Furthermore, they keep repeating that they are assessing candidates on the imaginary standard of a “Day 1 NQ Solicitor” but there’s no information about what is expected. This is particularly problematic for SQE 2 practical skills. Is a Day 1 NQ solicitor expected to draft a lease from scratch and from memory? Don’t know so it could come up. Is a Day 1 solicitor expected to make submissions to seek leave to appeal to the Crown Court? Don’t know!
That is my complaint. Too much material at too great a depth and an extraordinary view of what a day 1 solicitor should be doing.
And in other news, local beef cattle have voted their abbatoir the worst in the county.
Candidate opinions matter. They’re not the only opinions that matter though, and I’d be interested in the results of a survey of people supervising those who have completed the SQE as to whether they are competent trainees.
The SQE is FIT for PURPOSE. If you can’t even pass a simple multiple choice exam, you don’t deserve a place in the legal profession.
If only they could see what lawyers to be across the pond in France or Germany are put through, the SQE would feel like a walk in the park. I think the point is that the prep providers are not fit for purpose.