In depth: The SQE at four - what have we learned?

The Solicitors Qualifying Examination has come in for a fair amount of flak since it was introduced in 2021. Concern over the racial divide in pass rates. Criticism of the multiple-choice format for SQE1. And who can forget the fiasco in 2024 when 175 candidates were wrongly told they had failed their exam?

How can an exam introduced by the Solicitors Regulation Authority to provide greater assurance of standards and open up the profession be so flawed? A report published by the regulator this week on the SQE four years on suggests it isn’t. 

SQE assessment provider Kaplan analysed data from eight SQE1 sittings and 12 SQE2 assessments taken by 30,000 candidates in 50 countries between November 2021 and July 2025. 

According to Kaplan’s analysis, published yesterday, socio-economic background had little impact on performance. The impact on SQE scores of a parent’s education was 0.3% and 0.1% for occupation. Candidates who declared a disability performed as well as other candidates – which, the report says, was not the case with the old Legal Practice Course (LPC).

'The data indicates that reasonable adjustments are removing potential disadvantages these candidates might otherwise experience in the assessments'

Julie Swan, Solicitors Regulation Authority

The regulator heard concerns that neurodivergent candidates were disadvantaged when taking the SQE. Kaplan analysed SQE sittings between September 2024 and July 2025 – 5.6% of candidates had a reasonable adjustment plan and achieved slightly higher scores and pass rates than other candidates. (Kaplan focused on a set period to provide a sufficient sample size for meaningful analysis.)

Julie Swan, the SRA’s director of education and training, said the data ‘indicates that reasonable adjustments are removing potential disadvantages these candidates might otherwise experience in the assessments’.

Solicitor-apprentices are more likely to be from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Their overall pass rate was 71% for SQE1 and 93% for SQE2, compared with 66% and 85% for the whole cohort. They scored better in most SQE1 sittings and all but one SQE2 sitting. School leavers and graduate apprentices performed broadly on a par.

LPC graduates, on the other hand, fared less well. ‘This may reflect the fact that the LPC focuses on testing a candidate’s readiness to start a training contract, whereas the SQE tests whether a candidate is ready to practise as a solicitor, and so is more demanding. The data shows that candidates who have completed the LPC cannot rely on their studies for that qualification to pass SQE2,’ the report says. 

The ethnicity attainment gap has been a longstanding concern within the profession. The SRA commissioned research by the University of Exeter to understand why students from ethnic minorities were likely to have poorer outcomes than their white peers.

Kaplan’s analysis shows the proportion of Asian and black candidates is significantly higher than the proportion of Asian and black people in the working age population. We already knew from previous statistical reports that white candidates generally performed better than candidates from other ethnicities. But the latest analysis found that candidates’ ethnicity alone explained 7.6% of the variance in SQE1 scores and 4.2% of the variance in SQE2 scores.

‘Most of the variance in candidates’ scores cannot be explained by the data we have on their characteristics or backgrounds, either alone or in combination. It is likely to be explained by factors we cannot measure, such as motivation, aptitude, study time,’ the report states.

So, what is driving the variances?

‘Kaplan has undertaken a multivariate analysis to understand, when characteristics are considered in the round, how much of the difference in candidates’ performance is associated with any one characteristic… This multivariate analysis shows that the rank of the university attended by a candidate and their degree classification together explain about 22% of the variance in candidates’ SQE1 scores – 11.9% for university rank and 10.6% for degree classification,’ the report says.

‘Candidates who undertook degrees at higher-ranking universities and candidates who attained a higher-class degree generally performed better than those attending a lower-ranking university and/or who attained a lower-class degree.’

The analysis is undoubtedly insightful. For instance, any aspiring lawyer reading the latest analysis would think, ‘why go to university when I can earn while I learn as an apprentice and pass the SQE with flying colours?’ But the numbers also sit uncomfortably with a report published by the SRA last December, which revealed plummeting confidence among candidates in the SQE. Hundreds signed a petition set up by a trainee solicitor who said the SQE took a severe toll on their mental, financial and physical wellbeing. 

The numbers don’t lie – but do they tell the whole story?