SQE: Structural problems
Eight out of 10 current and former Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) candidates do not consider the exam is fit for purpose or good value for money, a survey by the National Junior Lawyers Division (NJLD) has found.
The NJLD said there were “structural issues” with the SQE requiring “urgent attention” and called, among other things, for the cost structure to be reviewed.
Almost half of candidates (44%) reported that the total cost of the SQE, including exams and preparatory courses, was or would likely be over £10,000.
The group – which is attached to the Law Society – said the survey findings reflected “a consistent and deeply felt set of concerns across factors such as cost, accessibility, transparency, employer readiness and candidate welfare”.
“The NJLD recognises that the SQE was still a relatively new system and that some transitional difficulty was inevitable.
“It further recognises that many candidates have successfully completed the SQE on the path to qualification and that accurately surveying and synthesising the views of this cohort is challenging.
“However, the strength and consistency of the evidence gathered here suggests that there are several structural issues that require urgent attention.”
The NJLD said 476 candidates completed the survey last year, which was self-selecting in terms of respondents rather than randomised. As a result it should be read as “strongly indicative of individual candidate experience, rather than statistically representative of the entire SQE candidate population”.
The University of Law was the most widely used provider of preparatory courses for the SQE, followed by BPP and BARBRI.
A large minority of candidates, 37%, said their course only prepared them ‘somewhat’ for the exam, while 3% said ‘not at all’.
Almost two-thirds of candidates (63%) did not regard their preparatory course as good value for money.
A majority had difficulties booking their SQE assessments – 27% citing significant or extreme problems: “Qualitative feedback frequently cited the first-come, first-served booking system, limited test centre availability, and the requirement to pay within a short window of receiving a booking slot.
“Several respondents reported queuing online for extended periods, only to find no available centres in their region.”
Nearly half of all candidates experienced difficulties on examination day, most commonly technical failures, inadequate test centre facilities and the need to travel long distances to sit exams.
Of the 80 candidates who required reasonable adjustments, only half reported that they were provided adequately.
A significant minority of candidates (28%) rated the SQE resit and appeal process as ‘terrible’, with 16% rating it as ‘poor’. Only 15% rated it as ‘good’.
The NJLD said: “The escalating cost of resits was a recurring theme, alongside dissatisfaction with the three-attempt limit, the perceived lack of transparency in the appeals process and the absence of detailed feedback on failed assessments.”
The “single strongest negative finding in the survey” related to value for money, with 82% saying the SQE was not “good value for money in terms of administration and examination fees”.
While 44% of candidates reported ‘some’ understanding and support for the SQE process from employers, 19% received none at all.
The 172 detailed responses from candidates to a question about their mental health and wellbeing “conveyed consistent themes of exhaustion, isolation, anxiety and financial stress”.
The NJLD called on the legal profession to “engage seriously” with the findings, calling for the cost structure to be reviewed, including resit fees “with a view to ensuring affordability and proportionality”.
They called for “detailed, verified pass rate data by preparatory course provider” to be published to improve transparency and “more meaningful, tailored feedback on failed assessments, including an identification of areas of weakness”.
An independent review should also be conducted of the reasonable adjustments process and legal employers given “clear, public-facing guidance on SQE support”.
Leave a Comment