Regulatory chiefs have admitted that universal approval for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination is lacking, as it emerged that a key target for helping candidates is being missed.
In statements this week, the Solicitors Regulation Authority sought to reiterate its commitment to the SQE but admitted that the exam has had problems in its first three years.
Concerns have been raised about the cost of taking the exam, the lack of a breakdown of marks, the absence of past papers and the nature of the multiple choice questions in SQE1. There have been further criticisms about reasonable adjustments not being made for neurodivergent candidates and the lack of available test centres.
In a break from the usually trenchant backing of SQE, the SRA this week accepted there were issues with the exam, after receiving feedback from stakeholder groups.
Chair Anna Bradley said that the board looked at potential changes when it met last week and a five-year plan will be worked on later this year. ‘There have inevitably been some teething problems on the way and so we have tried to adapt and adjust as we have moved the work forward,’ Bradley said. ‘One key area has been the changes made in response to feedback about the candidate experience. It is important we continue to build on this.’
In her address to the board, Bradley told members the SQE had been a ‘real success’, achieving the primary aim of ensuring that every solicitor was being assessed to the same high standard. But she added: ‘There continued to be some hearts and minds to win. And of course, there are further improvements we are working on.’
The latest SRA board papers include a performance update on the 2023/24 business plan and reveal that a SQE-based commitment was the one of 21 which could not be completed during the year.
The SRA had pledged to publish data linking SQE candidate outcomes with how they prepared for their assessments. This was intended to help aspiring solicitors make informed choices about how to approach the exam, but the external supplier contracted to develop the necessary tool has yet to making it available.
The SRA added: ‘We are considering the arguments for and against publishing the data currently available to us in a report format. There is a possibility we will be challenged, whatever our decision. Some training providers oppose us publishing data. Other training providers, SQE candidates and wider stakeholders are pressing us to do so.’
Feedback reported to the board showed that one in five SQE2 candidates did not think written tasks were clear. In the last quarter, the average time to deliver a reasonable adjustment plan for candidates with special needs crept over the SRA’s target of six days.
Income from SQE candidates was £36.7m during the 2023/24 year – 21% higher than budgeted – and the SQE2 cohort taking the exam in April is set to be the biggest yet.
It is not understood that the SRA has any major concerns about the pass rate for SQE1, which hovers at around 50%. It is felt by management that this is a signal that the test is robust and ensuring a high quality of new solicitors.
