That doesn’t really show much of anything. You could be an extremely well performing partner in a particular area of law and yet not know a lick of the law governing any other areas. Its an absurd expectation for new solicitors to just know everything…

Only valid points are: (a) make it cheaper, (b) have more test centres in the north, (c) publish provider results [and even this is questionable and unfair for past applicants]. Other than that – it should stay the same

Ps.- this sounds unfair to the thousand of us applicants who actually had to do the SQE under more challenging circumstances and still passed. Don’t let the SRA go lenient. Strict regulations should be held. This will greatly benefit the legal sector as a whole.

I went to Durham and he is completely, utterly consumed by Brexit. It’s quite concerning

Well.. that’s a little short-sighted! Someone who has shown their ability to pick up law across seven areas they have no hope of working can surely comprehend employment law too. Of course, they’d need some credibility in applying for an employment associate position, but you may be missing the point of what SQE excellence demonstrates.

Respectfully, a typical prize winner in an Oxford finals paper in law is usually around 73-74 mark, at absolute most.

The highest average score in the year very rarely across all papers exceeds 70, and even when it does, certainly not by much.

The standards are entirely different to lower ranked unis. I understand in some institutions an 80 is possible. In Oxford law, it would be a once in a decade, perhaps century.

You’re ignoring that the exams are more difficult to reflect that. I have no idea but I assume Oxbridge has never used Multiple choice exams

In a sense, if you attended Oxford, you have better access to resources, that being fellow lecturers who are esteemed in their area of study; your own peers who are extremely smart; support from the university itself, who go out of its way to accommodate students.

So, if you *did* attend Oxford – you’d be expected to get a First compared to people who attend the University of West London, because they don’t have access to those esteemed lecturers, and aren’t surrounded by extremely smart people

It is different as we now have paralegals who are able to qualify separately from a traditional Training Contract.

I have seen many people over the years who are completely capable of being solicitors, but just couldn’t get a TC. The barrier to entry should not be the responsibility of law firms. People now have a way of qualifying independently.

My previous point though, was that people are using the SQE route to qualify. Firms are now using the option more than you might realise. As firms increasingly see this as a viable option, we will see more of it.

We are also completely forgetting that previously thousands of people paid to study the LPC, just for the opportunity to get a TC. This “LPC gamble” as the SRA termed it, has now been removed.

2) I don’t feel comfortable commenting on this because the author has not provided enough details on what legal tech he is referring to. I will say the systems used during the exams is completely at odds with how a newly qualified solicitor will actually act with the limited technology provided. Maybe we can start with Kaplan implementing a working spell check function.

3) This seems like a good idea but falls apart on scrutiny. An exemption from the SQE2 would not work because they examine completely different aspects to what a law degree (or any degree) does.

I also would not have wanted an exemption from the SQE1 as a first class law graduate if I then had to sit SQE2. It is very difficult to pass SQE2 without the legal knowledge you get from SQE1. Also a QLD does not teach most of the content examined on SQE1 either so they would only be getting an exemption from the aspects not examined by the prep course anyway. I doubt this would meaningfully affect costs for either the students or Kaplan (regardless of whether the exam fees paid is close to the costs suffered by the SRA and Kaplan) and they would be studying the same content anyway on the prep course for SQE2 at the very least.

Also, the reality is not all Universities are equal, a situation where a student with a 2:1 from OxBridge does not get an exemption but someone who scraped a 1st from another University feels wrong and is going to be extremely difficult to defend.

4) Agreed. Back to my previous point there is no way the costs of the exams are in any way related to the actual costs suffered conducting the exam. The SRA should also stop wasting money like preparing the exams in Welsh for no-one to sit it.

5) Agreed. They also need to be more varied in the South. London’s test centres are all within a 15 minute drive of each other. Its a lesser scale than the North’s issues but West London and South London should both have a test centre.

6) I don’t know enough about this to comment

7,8,9) Agreed. Everyone knows it has not been published because it would shatter the SRA’s claims of accessibility, when the number of people not paying ridiculous sums for a prep course are not passing.

10) Agreed

In my large city firm, where we take circa 40 NQs a year, there have been exactly 2 SQE qualified paralegals get an NQ role. Not the most ringing endorsement.

“On the one hand, you lot believe that the SQE is difficult to pass, and on the other you will not embrace the conclusion that someone getting through the system, is deservedly employable”

It is hard to pass because it tests an absurd range of knowledge, to very granular detail, in a format (absolute best answer questions) that does not lend itself well to law.

It does not tell me someone is employable. If I was hiring for say an employment associate, I would not care about their performance in Wills and the Administration of Estates, nor would I care about how well they performed in Criminal Law and Practice. They are totally redundant on whether you are employable to me.

Absolutely this. Having taken and passed both sets of exams in the past year, this is the issue students are most frustrated with. Particularly for SQE1, where questions often focus on very specific points of law/practice.

The fact that this issue isn’t even touched on in this 10-point plan leads me to believe that Professor Brooks is also somewhat detached from the true shortcomings of the system he is proposing to reform. Some of these proposals are very broad brush.

I agree with everything you’ve said except for it not being as bad as people say. In terms of the workload at least. I’m also a sponsored student but I (and pretty much all of the other sponsored students on my course) have found it very tough going in terms of course demands and the sheer volume of information that needs to be learnt in preparation for the exams in July. Although I can only hope that the exam itself is not as bad as people say!

I can dedicate 12+ hours a day to it and it is fine. I know that I will pass comfortably in July.

The real injustice is that the exact people it was designed to help just get screwed.

I could not pass comfortably whilst working.

Thanks for this information. The real problem is the level of downvoting you will inevitably get on your post. The disbelief & distrust from current lawyers for anyone who qualified through a new process. On the one hand, you lot believe that the SQE is difficult to pass, and on the other you will not embrace the conclusion that someone getting through the system, is deservedly employable. SRA did what they did several years ago; what has the industry done to catch up with it?