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.”