You sound like a low IQ individual who passed the SQE.

No offence, but law (and virtually all humanities, arts, and social sciences) has nothing to do with intelligence.

A 160 IQ genius wouldn’t be able to tell you anything about English law if they have never ever seen a single English statute or case. Similarly one wouldn’t be able to tell you what the 4 houses of Hogwarts are if they have never even heard of Harry Potter.

If what you said were true then I support replacing SQE with IQ tests. Much less stressful.

Law conversion courses are helpful, but SQE prep courses are not worth the exorbitant fees (a rant for another day). Don’t pay for a prep course if you can avoid it. City law TCs are like gold dust, but they sponsor your learning, set you up financially and give you a lot of career optionality. If you’re smart enough to pass the SQE first time via self study, you’re smart enough to convince an HR dork/disinterested senior associate/ divorced real estate partner that you deserve a TC.

Or, you can risk it and self study. Congratulations, you get to argue with insurers for a living.

I know this is satire. But, for anyone reading, the SQE has nothing to do with intelligence. Law by nature isn’t intelligible which is why it should be studied (i.e. a prep course). It’s a sad state of affairs if people are encouraged to complete SQE without a prep course – this won’t lead to good outcomes for the legal profession or trust and confidence in those operating under the title of a solicitor.

To any prospective SQE candidates, it’s best to do a prep course to give yourself the best chance at success of these silly exams.

The low pass rate is likely to be a result of either lazy or dumb candidates. Nuff said.