That seems a sensible suggestion.

The issue isn’t so much that the SQE is wrong, more that students and course providers have not been given adequate information to prepare properly for it. I had used both the University of Law SQE manuals and the Oxford University Press manuals, and both were slightly ‘off’ in preparing the students for the specific SQE questions.

If the SRA could review prep materials and endorse them as being suitable for the SQE, so students know that all the examinable content was covered by those materials, then this problem with the SQE goes away (and the exams can remain as challenging as they already are). If the SRA can endorse prep courses as being SQE appropriate, even better.

Next time you write to this organ, please take a few seconds to check and correct your jumbled syntax.

You mean a democracy? 🧐

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/braverman-attacks-snowflake-solicitors-over-sqe-petition/5124147.article

Do you agree?

It doesn’t matter whether the practice of law requires only 10% of the content examined in the exam. The SQE serves as a control to prevent incapable and improperly qualified candidates from becoming a part of the prestigious legal profession.

I ought to see an argument for an exemption to do SQE2 if you did brilliantly in your A-levels and graduated from Oxbridge. It’s because the superior academic background demonstrates diligence and intelligence and hence the SQE isn’t required for these candidates (as they’d almost certainly pass anyway).

Like you, I received wildly varying marks. In my SQE2 interviewing, I got 25/25 one day and got 2/25 the next. I’m not sure how the same skill can vary so much within 24 hours.

A return to the LPC with a series of examinations being a mixture of multiple choice, short and long answer questions would test higher levels of cognitive ability and the ability to write a coherent argument.

A former FE lecturer with experience working in examination standards and evaluation who passed the LPC and is looking for work in the legal sector.

The exams are not perfect but stress and pressure is a part of the work of a solicitor.
We are in a service sector that charges very high fees.Try telling a client you can’t fo something as promised because you are under pressure.They will walk.

a memory test is not a good assessment

I sat the central LSF in 1990 and later on I taught on the LPC for many years. I agreed with the SRA’s wish to have one central set of exams set by the SRA, rather than having the providers set their own exams, which did lower standards. The LPC was also too costly for those not sponsored, i.e. most people, and I agreed with the need to lower that cost barrier to increase access.
But the SRA has thrown the baby out with the bath water. The SQE1 training programmes don’t provide any actual legal training or education in the way the LPC did. Attending the LPC classes was itself a transformative process, even before you got anywhere near an exam room. Every year I’d observe the change from gormless youth to something with the demeanour of a professional proto-trainee. That’s been lost. The SQE1 programmes are just crammers for a giant MCQ test-fest. Lots of firms have commented that their SQE trainees now don’t have the knowledge and training that the LPC provided. And sorry, assessment by MCQ only? No writing? Come on.
And as for cost, well, sure you can sit SQE1 without shelling out for a course first so, sure, access to the profession is easier on paper, but very poor pass rates without a course, unsurprisingly. I’d never advise a paralegal to do SQE1 without a course first – and they cost as much as the FT LPC. And, er, excuse me, but did the SRA forget you could do the LPC part-time? While working? There wasn’t really much cost barrier to the LPC at all, or not that a half-decent paralegal couldn’t deal with.
So, they should have kept the LPC, made the CPA exams central, pushed the part-time course more loudly and made the 2-year TC more flexible. Not rocket science.
Evolution, not revolution.

Candidates are faced with 360 “single best answer” MCQs. One every 90 seconds over two half days.

Questions are long, and the SRA accept that their own “example MCQs” are not representative of the questions candidates face… All candidates have to sign an Non-Disclosure Agreement so no training provider has any idea about what is on the assessment.

This is a ridiculous assessment, guaranteeing nothing other than a lot of money in the pockets of both Kaplan and the SRA.

Perhaps you ought to read the article more closely, a skill which is key to being a solicitor.

The in-house lawyers never suggested the exams were ‘wrong’ because their graduates did not pass – they are raising awareness of the exams being unfit for purpose.

I think you’ll find many decisions are influenced by ‘how loud people moaned about them’. Have you ever heard of a protest? or perhaps a democratic government?

I am unsurprised you made your comments anonymously, it makes it easier to spout ignorance without any consequences.

Now that clients are speaking out I hope the big firms will be less afraid of criticising the SQE for fear of looking less rigorous. It’s not about rigour but poor design. I’m not sure how many stakeholders have to speak out before there is change.

If you look at the timings on the original letter, you’ll see it was sent to the SRA was sent BEFORE the results for that candidate would have been released…