The SQE is failing its own test

Let me start with an admission. I was less than enthusiastic when the Solicitors Regulation Authority began drawing up plans for the Solicitors Qualifying Exam, or SQE. If we want greater competency among newly qualified solicitors within a more diversely inclusive legal profession, I have always thought there were more preferable means to pursue these ends. When I was Dean of a law school, I was always impressed by the quality of our students who were perhaps among the most diverse cohort at my institution in a situation I know was replicated elsewhere. 

The SQE has been in place since 2021, but not without some apparent stumbling along the way. It was claimed that the SQE would enable improvements in access and transparency fuelled by providing different SQE provider exam results. This was supposed to help drive the performance of providers, improve applicant choice and control costs. Despite various reassurances, this pass-rate data has yet to appear.

Moreover, some of the data that is available may raise concerns. The first is whether there should be a target pass rate. It had fallen to 44% in July last year before rising to 56% this past January.

The second is the attainment gap among different cohorts. While seventy percent of white students pass SQE1, this drops to thirty-seven percent for black students. This gap remains at SQE2 where eighty-four percent of white students pass but only fifty-one percent of black students. There are other issues too such as when one hundred seventy five people last year were told they failed the test when they had actually passed.

As we approach its fifth anniversary next September, I would suggest it is time to reform the SQE and better addresses concerns like these. 

A first idea is to create a SQE advisory panel. This might be composed of senior practitioners, some SQE-qualified and legal academics closing the feedback loop between the test makers, the test takers and the wider field. 

My second recommendation is to re-examine and refresh the content for SQE1 and SQE2. Law and tech will be a major part of our future, especially as uses for artificial intelligence take hold. Its transformation may be profound. Some consideration should be given to whether areas like this might be incorporated and to whether other topics might be removed or changed from part one to part two. 

A third reform is to review whether some applicants might be permitted an exemption from at least some parts of the SQE. The data shows law graduates with a first class degree have a pass-rate of about eighty percent. A partial exemption could help cut costs and widen access.

There should be greater financial support for applicants, too. This might take different forms, such as increasing the exam fee discount where relevant. The SRA does not have a magic money tree I'm sure, but greater support could go a long way to improving inclusion further.

Fifthly, we need greater transparency on data and, specifically, the long overdue performance data linked to providers. It would be desirable if a view was taken on target pass-rate ranges, too. 

Finally, this data should be linked to a strategic plan - perhaps proposed by the advisory board noted above - to improve closing attainment gaps among applicants.

As should be clear, my recommendations are aimed at making the SQE fulfill its aims and purposes better in a constructive spirit. Rather than focus only on concerns, these reforms would provide solutions that I hope the SRA will consider and support. 

Thom Brooks is professor of law and government at Durham Law School and principal of Collingwood College, Durham University