The Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) has become a lightning rod for controversy, with conflicting narratives emerging from regulators and legal professionals. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) insists the exam is “robust and rigorous,” but a National Junior Lawyers Division (JLD) survey reveals starkly different views from candidates. Eight in 10 respondents say the SQE is unfit for purpose or poor value for money—a claim that clashes with the SRA’s upbeat assessment of its own quality assurance report. The tension between these perspectives highlights a system under strain, where high stakes and high costs collide with practical concerns.
A Divided Assessment
The SRA’s chief executive, Sarah Rapson, pointed to independent reviewer Ricardo Lé’s report and exam provider Kaplan’s findings as proof of the SQE’s “robustness.” Lé described the exam as “high-stakes assessments that are complex and multi-faceted,” arguing they “result in an assessment that is robust and defensible.” Yet the JLD survey paints a grimmer picture. Hundreds of candidates reported financial strain, inadequate feedback, and mental health tolls. One respondent called the SQE a “memory test” that bears no resemblance to the realities of first-day legal practice.
Read Also: Supreme Court Case Selection: How Justices Choose What to Decide
The SRA’s own data backs some of the JLD’s concerns. Candidate satisfaction for SQE1, which tests legal knowledge through multiple-choice questions, dipped to 50–55%. Satisfaction for SQE2, which involves role-play scenarios, remained stagnant at 46–57%. These figures, though not catastrophic, signal a growing disconnect between the exam’s design and the expectations of those taking it.
Costs on the Rise
Exam fees are set to climb, reflecting inflation and the cost of translating assessments into Welsh. Candidates will now pay £2,006 for SQE1 and £3,086 for SQE2—up from £1,934 and £2,974, respectively. The SRA defends the increase as necessary, but critics argue it exacerbates the financial burden on aspiring solicitors. With legal education already a costly endeavor, the added expense risks pricing out talented candidates from underrepresented backgrounds.
The JLD survey also highlights a lack of transparency around the exam’s value. Many respondents questioned whether the SQE’s structure—particularly its multiple-choice format for SQE1—aligns with the practical skills needed in legal practice. “No first-day solicitor would retain that amount of information,” one candidate wrote, underscoring a core criticism: the exam tests memorization over application.
Reasonable Adjustments and Systemic Gaps
The SRA’s quality assurance report admits shortcomings in its reasonable adjustments process. Candidates requiring accommodations, such as extra time or medication, often faced inadequate support. One JLD respondent recounted being denied water for medication during an exam, a detail that exposes gaps in the system’s ability to accommodate diverse needs.
Lé acknowledges the process has improved, with candidates now able to view adjustment details in their accounts. But the JLD’s findings suggest these changes haven’t resolved deeper issues. “The system is not failing, but it’s not succeeding either,” said one legal professional. “It’s a patchwork of fixes that don’t address the root problems.”
Design vs. Reality
The SQE’s format remains a flashpoint. Lé defends the multiple-choice approach for SQE1, arguing it tests knowledge across a wide range of areas. Yet the JLD survey emphasizes that real-world legal work rarely presents candidates with a list of five options. For SQE2, the SRA claims the exam’s objectives are “clear,” but candidates report confusion over how their performance is evaluated.
The SRA has responded by publishing more sample questions and guidance, but critics argue these measures are reactive rather than transformative. “They’re trying to plug holes, not redesign the ship,” said one legal educator. The JLD’s report urges a broader review, including pass rate data for course providers and “meaningful” feedback on failed assessments—a call the SRA has yet to fully address.
A System Under Scrutiny
Rapson admits confidence in the SQE is not where the SRA would like it to be. “Extensive evaluation is underway,” she said, echoing the JLD’s recommendations. But with the exam already a decade in the making, the question remains: Can the SQE be reformed without losing its core purpose? Or will it remain a symbol of a system that prioritizes compliance over competence?
Is the SQE fit for purpose?
Opinions are split. The SRA argues it meets regulatory standards, but candidates and legal professionals criticize its disconnect from practical legal work. The JLD survey suggests the exam fails to prepare solicitors for the realities of the profession, highlighting a gap between theory and practice.
What are the main criticisms of the SQE?
Critics point to high costs, inadequate feedback, and an exam format that emphasizes memorization over real-world skills. Many candidates also report poor support for those requiring reasonable adjustments, such as extra time or medical accommodations.
How is the SRA addressing concerns about the SQE?
The SRA has published more sample questions and guidance, but critics argue these are superficial fixes. The JLD’s report calls for a broader overhaul, including a review of pass rates and the introduction of more meaningful feedback for failed candidates.