Bro learn how to spell.

Tbf if you actually looked into both exams, youd realise that the key skills tested are very similar, especially regarding SQE 2 and the LPC.

Ofc, the main ‘killer’ is still SQE 1.

I’m not trying to advocate one way or the other, but in the interest of fairness Single Best Answer Questions are only undertaken in SQE1. The written elements of SQE2 do include the more practical skills required for a career in law, eg. legal research, legal writing.

I can’t comment on how these compare to the offering in the LPC, but it isn’t absent from SQE2.

I also agree with the comment above that it’s more about the individual than it is the qualification, and there are so many relevant factors from the last 5 years that really should form part of this “survey”.

For new graduates it seems a bit of a mess and I’ve rarely seen positive experiences shared. For the amount of money they pay to even sit the exam it’s ridiculous how badly it’s been organised.

Perhaps the format could be reworked and used as an alternative route to qualification for specific groups but it is not fit for purpose as the main route to qualification in my view

What on earth has this to do with ‘woke-a cheap jibe, and Reform. We are talking about legal education and professional skills, especially the comparisons between LPC and SQE. Very sad that such an important issue is relegated to gutter politics.

The ‘representative arms’ of the profession lobbied extremely hard against it and the consultation responses were majority negative. Most of the issues now were raised as concerns from the start. They were just ignored. There’s as much frustration amongst the profession as the students about this.

I agree that picking on Julie Brannon isn’t appropriate but the SRA as a body made the decision against the overwhelming consultation feedback.

As a current SQE 1 resit candidate, I completely agree with the author’s perspective. The nature of the exam encourages cramming, which does little to prepare candidates for the realities of legal practice. Without prior experience in a law firm, many of us, particularly career changers like myself, find ourselves in roles that are vastly different from what is expected of a trainee solicitor.

Unfortunately, the SQE has not been as successful as the SRA had originally envisioned. Rather than facilitating a smoother entry into the legal profession, it seems to be acting as a deterrent, discouraging aspiring solicitors from pursuing a legal career.

It’s encouraging to see that this issue is sparking broader conversations! Hopefully, this discussion leads to meaningful engagement between candidates, law firms, and the SRA, paving the way for improvements that better support aspiring solicitors. Change often starts with people voicing their concerns so it’s great to be part of this conversation.

This is spot on Tom. I supervise trainees at a top 20 UK law firm and have not seen any difference in our trainee intakes – clearly they have not asked everyone’s views in this survey.

Alright Julie…

Reread the article you banana, the SQE and the LPC test on different skills.

Target the SRA by all means, but let’s not target individuals. The SQE was developed by several people and approved by the senior leadership team at the SRA, then the SRA Board, and ultimately the LSB. There was also extensive public consultation, so if the SQE is as bad as you say and this was known all along, perhaps the representative arms of the profession should have done better campaigning against it.