Law student Scott McCulloch puts his head above the parapet to defend the new solicitor exam regime
The National Junior Lawyers Division (NJLD) published a survey report on 9 April 2026, which Legal Cheek reported under the headline that 80% of Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) students consider the route ‘not fit for purpose’.
The report raises several legitimate operational concerns that deserve constructive engagement. However, the lead finding is methodologically unsound; the implied conclusion that the SQE is broadly unfit is not supported by the data the NJLD itself presents; and the framing omits the comparative context essential for evaluating any professional qualification system. This commentary addresses each of those deficiencies in turn.
The survey canvassed 476 current and former SQE candidates. To appreciate what that number means, it is necessary to consider scale. By the end of 2024, the Solicitors Regulation Authority had administered SQE1 to well over 20,000 candidates across multiple cohorts since the examination’s introduction in November 2021. A voluntary online survey yielding 476 responses represents at most approximately 2% of the candidate population.
Voluntary surveys of professional qualifications are structurally biased towards respondents with strongly held views, particularly negative ones. Candidates who have passed comfortably and progressed into practice have limited incentive to complete retrospective feedback surveys. While the NJLD acknowledges the response base, the presentation of the 80% figure risks implying representativeness that the methodology cannot support.
The sub-sample sizes reinforce this point. The ‘80%’ finding derives from 272 respondents who answered the relevant question, not from the full 476. That represents approximately 1.4% of the candidate population. This is not a marginal caveat. It is a limitation that significantly constrains the conclusions that can properly be drawn.
Stripped of overextended conclusions, the survey reveals a set of credible operational concerns. Booking difficulties, reported by 53.71% of respondents, including lack of test centre availability in certain regions, are consistent with widely reported issues in exam administration. Concerns regarding reasonable adjustments, with half of the eighty respondents requiring adjustments reporting inadequate provision, raise serious questions and may engage obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Calls for greater transparency, including access to past papers and clearer marking criteria, are both reasonable and necessary for a high-stakes, high-cost assessment.
These are complaints about delivery and administration. They are not evidence that the SQE is conceptually unfit for purpose. Nor do they establish that it is uniquely problematic when compared to its predecessor, the Legal Practice Course, which itself was subject to longstanding criticism relating to cost variability, inconsistent standards, and unequal outcomes.
The ‘not fit for purpose’ framing becomes more difficult to sustain when the SQE is considered alongside other UK professional qualification systems. The Final Diploma examinations for chartered patent attorneys, administered by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, routinely produce pass rates below 50%, with some papers failing the majority of candidates and requiring a full year before resit. Within medicine, the MRCPsych produces pass rates that frequently fall within a comparable range, with progression through the training pathway taking significantly longer than the minimum expected duration for many candidates.
At the bar, the principal barrier is not examination performance but the scarcity of pupillage. A substantial proportion of candidates who complete the Bar training course never secure pupillage, despite significant financial investment. This outcome is accepted as a structural feature of the profession, rather than evidence of systemic unfitness.
This comparison does not minimise the SQE’s shortcomings. It situates them. High failure rates, significant cost, and demanding assessment standards are characteristic of professional qualification systems designed to protect the public by ensuring minimum competence.
The NJLD’s more measured position, as articulated by its chair, is both constructive and appropriate. The SQE is a relatively new qualification framework. Transitional issues in administration are unsurprising, but they require resolution. The programme of reform identified, including improved transparency, greater access to preparatory materials, an independent cost review, and a strengthened reasonable adjustments process, is well aligned with the evidence. These are targeted improvements to a functioning system. They are not grounds for characterising the system as fundamentally unfit.
Survey evidence of this kind is most valuable when it identifies specific, remediable issues. The NJLD survey succeeds in doing so in relation to administration, access, and candidate support. It does not establish, on its methodological basis, that the SQE is unfit for purpose. Professional qualifying examinations are, by design, rigorous and often difficult. That difficulty is not a flaw. It is a safeguard. The SQE’s problems are real and require attention, but they do not amount to the systemic failure suggested by the headline.
Scott McCulloch is a law student at The University of Law and a member of BARBRI’s SQE Student Committee.
Funnily enough, the perspective of a man with 10 years experience in Life sciences consulting and a swathe of professional qualifications already under his belt is at odds with everyone else. He also hasn’t actually sat the SQE yet
Sticking your head above the parapet is when a 22 year old calls out dodgy Grad Rec not when a 33 year old plays shoeshiner for an exam board.
I sat the SQE1 in January…I’m not sure I follow the logic in your comment.
So well said. The SQE does not test one’s knowledge of law. It tests one’s mental and physical strengths and the ability to pay a huge amount of money.
Knowledge of the law is one thing. Being a solicitor is a profession. It requires a lot of mental and psychological tenacity that a lot of people don’t have (and why should they?). I think SQE is a well placed qualification to help people wake up to the reality that being a solicitor isn’t for everyone. Uni students are sold this glamorous picture of what it means to be a city lawyer earning $$$. In reality most private practice solicitors hate their jobs and it causes them a great deal of stress and terrible mental health. I have no doubt that those truly capable of being a solicitor will pass these exams, from Magic Circle prospective lawyers to High Street prospectives. It’s ok for anyone who isn’t cut out to consider other careers (which might make them happier and more fulfilled).
This absolute discriminatory and tragic comment is the first ever comment I got to my first ever article, congratulations. Multiple untruths and directly attacking me as opposed to analysing the content or providing any constructive feedback or input. It’s no wonder. Mental health is at an all-time low. My suggestion would be, find a hobby.
Haha. Mate, you are out here defending the SQE? What? Why?
Defending SQE? I’m not sure that’s how I would summarize the article. It’s brutal, challenging…just as designed…same exam type that the doctor who treats you had to take to become a professional.
God help us is this is what a 2PQE says. Weak!
Wouldn’t let people like this bother you. Likely, failed, jobless, bad grades, junior, jealous. DLTBGYD
If write an article about a controversial topic, you need to expect some dissenting opinion. I can’t see any ‘discriminatory’ comments, and blaming them for your ‘mental health being at an all time low’ feels quite manipulative. Unless a truly horrendous comment has been deleted, I think you need to reflect on your health and seek some help, because none of what has been published should be enough to completely derail you – I say this with genuine intent.
To be absolutely clear regarding the Mental Health comment, the comment made to disregard my opinion due to my age and existing career is water off a ducks back. Frankly, I’m embarrassed for the person. Should this persons behavior be repeated and replicated by others, yes, others would be upset and may have a hard time dealing with it. People are ashamed of their own comments, that’s why most are nameless. They would likely be mortified if their identify was revealed for all to see. So yes, be kind. It’s not hard.
Don’t feed the troll/s, Nothing wrong with the perspective you gave. But remember, these message boards are populated mainly by students who have emerged from an education system where the majority of candidates receive A, B and 2:1+ in school and uni exams. Many of them have now bitten off more than they can intellectually chew. And while that might sound snarky, I really do sympathise with them – it’s their first encounter with an academic meritocracy.
Great essay but the reason why this whole text is void and not comparable to the Bar, patent attorneys or medical exams is because the SRA introduced the SQE to make qualifying more accessible, standardised and streamlined compared to the LPC, not to be as bad as said exam systems. So based on feedback over the years across different measures, the SRA has failed to do that… so not entirely sure the angle you’re trying to put across.
The LPC and SQE are completely different formats. Compared to intense examination formats with many practice areas examined at once….its tough….this was “the angle”.
The SQE is more standardised – so they have delivered on that. The SQE has also opened up the routes to qualification – previously this was by way of a training contract only. We shouldn’t confuse the exam having a lower pass mark compared to the LPC as being the same as limiting access to the profession. “Streamlining” was never a part of the SQE proposal and I’m unsure what that would refer to.
Well said. You OWNED this “trainee”.
This is a very measured response. The JLD have been opposed to the SQE from the outset, so it is important to consider who commissioned the survey and what outcome they may have been seeking.
Scott makes a valid point about sample size. If 20,000 people have sat SQE1, a sample of 377 would be sufficient (to achieve a 95% confidence level with a ±5% margin of error). However, as the author notes, the number of responses to some questions falls below this threshold and is unlikely to be representative.
While the report highlights important issues that need to be addressed, we should be clear that the headlines do not fully reflect the overall picture.
My issue with the SQE is not the difficulty of the exam but lack of official guidance and prep courses to reach the required standards.
Passing both SQEs is very often a condition to start a TC. This means the candidates are required to reach NQ standard (often) without ever dealing with a real client or case.
The prep courses teach us how to pass the exam , not how to be a good lawyer. So if you are relatively smart, have financial and time resources, this exam is totally passable.
The story is a bit different for a full time working paralegals or other professionals, with families to look after and limited £££ to pay for all the courses (my story). Having a bank of pass papers and official study curriculum would help address this.
I share this story.
Actually, it’s your criticism of this survey that “crosses the line”. The NJLD is not pretending they are YouGov. They have limited visibility/resources and I had not heard of them until now.
The only organisation that can do the comprehensive survey that you desire is the SRA and they have not published any data on this. I note you have not called on them to do so, which makes me question your motives. I’ll give you a bit of a preview: 100% of my sponsored class and trainee cohort don’t think it’s fit for purpose.
Interestingly, having taken the exam, you had the opportunity to actually discuss specific issues with the SQE and decided not to for whatever reason. You also mention the qualification process for barristers (BPC and then pupillage being the bottleneck) but then don’t explain why the solicitors path cannot be the same way when barristers are supposed to be more specialist and brainy than solicitors.
Overall, this article is tilting at windmills and doesn’t actually have any point.
Yes, I’m not entirely sure of your point either. 100% of people I speak to, believe Solicitors should go through rigorous examination, like most other professions. And of note, you wouldn’t find me writing an article on the painful several years that I spent studying for the exam or how much money I spent on doing so and I’m still not over the line. A headline stating that 80% of people who take the exam believe it’s not fit for purpose which represents a total of 2% of people actually examined is frankly ridiculous.
If your concern genuinely is lack of data, then what you should be doing is calling for MORE data, not simply bashing the results of the survey. That you have not done this reveals you already have a predisposed conclusion.
But something tells me you aren’t really interested in this issue and improving the qualification process. You’re hoping writing this article will help you raise your profile and help bag that TC. But if your response is any reflection of your maturity and how you write without the help of AI, good luck with that.
A lot of assumptions here that are completely false. The article speaks for itself…claiming that the majority of people ((80%) think the exam is not for purpose is simply not true…that’s the bottom line. Simple. Good luck to you also. I hope you do have better things going on in your life than sitting on media outlets making up stories about Authors who are simply contributing in the hope of not putting career pivot folk like me off taking the SQE route. It’s encouragement that is needed…NOT what’s currently on offer RE the SQE.
Additionally, email me any time to talk about my maturity and my thoughts on the SQE…and how different data from the MANY prep course providers tells a different story.
Go touch grass and make friends. Who the hell actually responds to multiple posts on LegalCheek asking people to “email me”. You clearly have too much time …
When you grow up, you will understand that 1) people who produce work care. Responding to comments is part and parcel of providing an article, and 2) debate on a topic is better on an equal footing, not hiding behind comment forms with no identify. Of course, you are likely completely oblivious to the irony in your comment.
High and mighty. Post a link to some of your work.
Administration failures are unacceptable but a high bar to pass the exam is not. The writer is correct. Those who criticise the difficulty are by and large those the exam was designed to screen out of the profession.
The writing here reeks of AI. Seriously, how many ‘it’s not X, it’s Y’ structures do you think is enough? Why should we care about your opinion when you clearly didn’t care enough to write your own opinion piece?
Whoops. This is incorrect. However, since you asked so kindly, my disclosure is, Co pilot did help with some of my grammar. Is this permissible to you?
Additionally, I’m always happy to have a conversation regarding my opinion on this topic. Try to engage with content on media outlets and express yourself. Avoid turning to impulsive and meaningless. Email me any time, I’ll give more opinions on the matter.
Your comment is a projection? Grow up. AI is all over the place.
Was looking for this comment. A couple of valid points (amongst some less valid ones) but could do without the AI slop ‘grammar’.
Very well analysed Scott. And very brave too. The kind of thinking I hope more budding lawyers would look to nurture. Wish you the very best for your future.
Thanks for your article.
SQE1 is multiple choice which tests functioning legal knowledge and marked by a computer. Personally, I cannot see how that can be criticised but others may have a different view.
In my view, SQE2 presents the only problem that needs addressing immediately. For an exam so different to SQE1, it is fundamentally and procedurally unfair to past candidates (who exhausted their 3 attempts to pass) and current candidates fighting to pass.
In SQE2, the first issue is that all students in the same cohort and across different sittings all receive different assessment questions. These are supposed to be the same difficulty but will inevitably vary in difficulty by virtue of the subjects and nature of topics assessed. The second issue is the appeals process. The third issue is the 3 attempt rule.
In relation to the variation of questions, I have little confidence in the standard setting methods and moderation processes. Exposure to past papers would be sensible and give candidates a fairer chance at this.
In relation to appeals, there is no process that will actually look again at your answers again. That is wrong. You are literally left with the subjective marking and academic judgment of one assessor. These exams cost 3k to sit every time! There is not even a second academic judgment available for candidates who have failed or marginally failed. It raises serious questions about fairness. The solicitors’ profession prides itself on integrity, which unfortunately SQE2’s marking system lacks. For what are such expensive and high stake exams, the issues around appeals and marking procedures need addressing.
Given the several issues in all SQE reports published so far, your article and across the legal media, the 3 attempt rule and then waiting 6 years before being allowed to sit again must go. SQE2 unfortunately is still a very flawed exam which is in it’s early stages of development. It simply cannot be punishing people like this by risking throwing away entire livelihoods and years of hard work.
Excellent article, Scott. Legitimate issues in respect of the SQE revolve around procedural and logistical challenges that must be addressed. However, online criticism targeting the difficulty or low pass rates of the SQE fails to grasp the high-pressured nature of the profession the SQE is designed to prepare candidates for.