This Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) annual report provides a cumulative picture of the outcomes from the SQE assessments that have taken place in the reporting period (September 2021 - August 2022). Statistics and commentary are provided on the overall performance of candidates at the individual assessment level to enable comparisons over time and identify any emerging trends, and assessment data is provided where applicable at the cumulative level. Three assessment windows are covered in this report:

• November 2021: SQE1 (FLK1 and FLK2 assessments)
• April 2022: SQE2
• July 2022: SQE1 (FLK1 and FLK2 assessments)

While the results have not yet been released for the October 2022 assessment window delivery of SQE2, some data is provided on the number of candidates who attended this assessment.

i) About the SQE

The Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is a single rigorous assessment designed to assure consistent, high standards for all qualifying solicitors. It consists of two parts: SQE1, which tests candidates’ functioning legal knowledge (FLK), and SQE2, which tests candidates’ practical legal skills and knowledge. The SRA’s competence statement sets out what solicitors need to be able to do to perform the role effectively, and provides everyone with a clear indication of what to expect from a solicitor. This is what the SQE tests.

The SQE is provided by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). The SRA has appointed Kaplan SQE (Kaplan) as the approved assessment provider for the delivery of the SQE assessments and other related services.

In this first year, SQE assessments were delivered to more than 3000 candidates in 42 countries.

ii) SQE1

SQE1 consists of two 180 question multiple choice single best answer assessments (FLK1 and FLK2). These are delivered electronically in controlled and invigilated exam conditions at Pearson VUE test centres across the UK and internationally. Each FLK assessment takes place on a separate day. Each day is split into two sessions of 2 hours 33 minutes with 90 questions in each session. There is a 60-minute break between the sessions. FLK1 and FLK2 each have a separate pass mark. In order to pass SQE1, a candidate must pass both FLK1 and FLK2 assessments. Candidates who fail at their first attempt of SQE1 have two further opportunities to take the assessment(s) they failed (FLK1 and/or FLK2). Information about SQE1 can be found in the SQE1 Assessment Specification.

iii) SQE2

SQE2 comprises 16 stations – 12 written stations and four oral stations — that assess both skills and application of legal knowledge. The stations in SQE2 cover six legal skills (advocacy; case and matter analysis; interview and attendance note/legal analysis; legal drafting; legal research; legal writing) across five practice areas (business, organisations, rules and procedures; criminal litigation; dispute resolution; property practice; wills and intestacy, probate administration and practice).

SQE2 written assessments take place in Pearson VUE test centres over three consecutive half days and all candidates take the same written stations on the same date.

SQE2 oral assessments take place over two consecutive half days in oral assessment centres in Cardiff, London and Manchester. The logistics involved in running the oral assessments dictate that not all candidates in a cohort can take the same oral stations on the same date so multiple “sittings” are used for SQE2 oral stations. In order to protect the integrity of the assessments and to ensure equity, different oral stations are used at the different sittings, though the same skills and practice areas are covered so all candidates are assessed across the same skills and practice areas.

SQE2 has a single pass mark for the overall 16-station assessment. There may be slightly different pass marks between the SQE2 sittings to account for differences in the difficulty of the oral stations used, as described above.

Candidates who fail SQE2 at the first attempt have two further opportunities to take that assessment, and must resit the whole 16-station assessment. Information about SQE2 can be found in the SQE2 Assessment Specification.

iv) Exemptions

Exemptions from the SQE assessments are only available to qualified lawyers¹ . There are some candidates who meet the SRA transitional regulations and are using the SQE2 to qualify as a Solicitor. These are transitional candidates and these candidates are not required to take SQE1. To summarise there are three types of candidate taking SQE assessments:

• candidates going through the full SQE route,
• transitional candidates who are not required to take SQE1, and
• qualified lawyers who have successfully applied and been granted an exemption from FLK1, FLK2 or SQE2 as a whole.

¹See https://www.sra.org.uk/become-solicitor/qualified-lawyers/sqe-exemptions/

i) Number of Candidates

The data provided in this report relate to candidates who received a mark for any of the assessments. Candidates whose attempts were discounted due to mitigating circumstances are not included. Outcome data is provided separately for FLK1 and FLK2 assessments, and overall for SQE1 and SQE2.

In this reporting period, a total of 3290 individual candidates have received a mark for one or more of the SQE assessments. Table 1 below provides the number of candidates for each assessment, along with the numbers and proportions of candidates by attempt number, where applicable.

ii) Attempts and Resits

Candidates are allowed up to three attempts for each assessment within a six-year period. At the time of writing this report there had only been two opportunities to sit SQE1, so no candidates had made a third attempt. We are only reporting here on one SQE2 assessment as results for the second SQE2 (completed in the October 2022 assessment window) are due to be released in March 2023 and will be included in the 2022/23 annual report.

At their first SQE1 attempt, candidates are required to sit both FLK1 and FLK2 in the same assessment window. If a candidate fails FLK1 or FLK2 they only need to resit the assessment which they failed: passes can be carried forward within a six year period. Because of this, and owing to mitigating circumstances, the number of candidates may differ across FLK1, FLK2 and SQE1 overall.

*The number of candidates in both FLK1 and FLK2 for that assessment window.

iii) SQE2 October 2022

Though SQE2 in the October 2022 assessment window had been delivered at the time of writing this report, the marks had not been released to candidates. 646 candidates sat SQE2 in the October 2022 assessment window. These approximately breakdown as:

• 11% first attempt
• 7% second attempt
• 82% first attempt who are using SQE2 to qualify under the transitional arrangements.

These numbers could change if there are successful mitigating circumstance claims with attempts being discounted.

A statistical report will be published after results are released, and the October 2022 SQE2 data will be included in the 2022/23 Solicitors Qualifying Examination Annual Report.

iv) Quality Assurance Statistics

Table 2 provides the pass marks for each assessment, the average score (Mean), standard deviation (SD) and measures of test reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha and Standard Error of Measurement (SEm)).

Cronbach’s alpha

Cronbach’s Alpha (α) is a measure of test reliability that estimates the internal consistency, or how closely related the sets of items are in a test. It therefore tells us how well items (questions) work together as a set. A high α coefficient suggests that candidates tend to respond in similar ways from one item to the next. Values for α range from 0 (where there is no correlation between items) to 1 (where all items correlate perfectly with one another). The widely accepted gold-standard α for high-stakes assessments is 0.8. In all SQE1 assessments to date α has been greater than 0.9 and above 0.8 for SQE2, suggesting very good internal consistency and high reliability for the SQE1 and SQE2 assessments.

Standard error of measurement (SEm)

The SQE assessments provide an observed/obtained score for a candidate at a snapshot in time (the assessment). If the candidate were to sit the same assessment on another occasion, they may achieve a different score owing to various factors. Some of these can be controlled to an extent, such as the training provided, and some cannot, such as the amount of sleep the candidate got the night before the assessment.

A candidate's theoretical “true” score can only be estimated by their observed score but there is an inevitable degree of error around each candidate’s observed score, which is consistent with most assessments. The standard error of measurement (SEm) for an assessment is an estimate of how repeated measures of the same group of candidates on the same assessment would be distributed around their theoretical “true” scores. The SEm is a function of the reliability of the assessment (α) and the standard deviation in scores on the assessment. Generally, the higher the reliability, the lower the standard error of measurement and vice-versa.

For all SQE assessments to date the SEm has been below 4% which suggests that observed scores generally represent a very good approximation for true scores in these assessments.

Note - for SQE2 there were multiple sittings for the oral assessments (see introduction)

v) Candidate Journey

Tables 3a to 3c below summarise the journey so far for the candidates who have received assessment marks. These are provided separately for SQE1 (candidate outcomes) and SQE2 (candidate routes and outcomes). The candidates include transitional candidates not required to take SQE1, as well as qualified lawyers who have been granted an exemption by the SRA. Because early cohorts include large numbers of transitional candidates not required to take SQE1, the cohorts and their outcomes may not be representative of a steady-state cohort.

Table 3a: SQE1 Candidate outcomes

	Nov 2021	Jul 2022
Passed and sat SQE2 Apr 2022	341	n/a
Passed and sat SQE2 Oct 2022	68	n/a
Passed and yet to sit SQE2	107	795
Passed and exempt from SQE2	58	226
Sat part or all of SQE1 but did not pass - resat part or all of SQE1 Jul 2022	232	n/a
Sat part or all of SQE1 but did not pass - yet to resit	280	1030
Total	1086	2051

Of the 341 candidates who passed SQE1 in November 2021 and went on to sit SQE2 in April 2022, 302 (89%) passed. Of the 39 candidates who failed, 12 (31%) attempted SQE2 again in October 2022 (the results of which are not covered by this report), and 27 (69%) are yet to resit.

Of those who attempted parts of SQE1 in both November 2021 and July 2022, 61 (26%) passed their remaining assessments in July. They are now eligible to move on to SQE2.

Candidates who fail their first attempt may benefit from reviewing the information contained later in this report relating to candidate performance in different practice areas.

Table 3b: Candidate routes to SQE2

	Apr 2022	Oct 2022*
Passed SQE1 Nov 2021	341	83
Passed SQE1 Jul 2022	n/a	n/a
SQE1 exempt	0	0
Did not sit SQE1 - LPC transitional	186	245
Did not sit SQE1 - QLTS transitional	199	318
Total	726	646

*these numbers are provisional

Of the 385 candidates who did not sit SQE1 and sat SQE2 in April 2022, 259 (67%) passed. This compares to a significantly higher pass rate of 89% for those who had taken and passed the SQE1 in November 2021.

Table 3c: SQE2 Candidate outcomes

	Apr 2022	Oct 2022*
Passed	561	n/a
Failed and resat Oct 2022	46	n/a
Failed and yet to resit	119	n/a
Awaiting result	n/a	646
Total	726	646

*these numbers are provisional

Of the 561 candidates who passed SQE2 in April 2022:

• 302 (54%) had passed SQE1 in November 2021
• 259 were transitional candidates not required to take SQE1
  • 127 (23%) were LPC transitional candidates
  • 132 (24%) were QLTS transitional candidates.

Of the 165 candidates who failed SQE2 in April 2022:

• 46 (28%) resat in Oct 22 and 119 are yet to resit
• 39 (24%) had passed SQE1 in November
• 126 were transitional candidates not required to take SQE1
  • 57 (35%) were LPC transitional candidates
  • 69 (42%) were QLTS transitional candidates.

Table 4 shows the candidate pass rates (and number passing) for each assessment for all candidates and by attempt. It also shows, for SQE2, the pass rate for those transitional candidates who did not need to take the SQE1 (including QLTS and LPC transitional candidates).

i) Pass rates on SQE1 (FLK1 and FLK2)

In the first two SQE1 assessments, the pass rates for FLK1 have been higher than for FLK2 (+13% and +9%). This might suggest that candidates are better prepared for the assessment themes in the FLK1 assessment. We will continue to monitor this across future assessments.

The overall SQE1 pass rate was consistent for both SQE1 assessments at 53%.

ii) Pass rates for resitting candidates

Pass rates for SQE1 in July 2022 were significantly lower for resitting candidates, when compared to first attempt candidates. This was true for both FLK1 and FLK2.

The number resitting was relatively small (6% and 11% respectively for FLK1 and FLK2). However, the lower pass rate might indicate that resit candidates may want to consider taking more time (and/or putting in more work or training) between sittings. This may help them improve from a failing to passing standard.

iii) Pass rates on SQE2

The SQE2 pass rate was markedly higher than for SQE1 (+24%). This was unsurprising given that sitting SQE2 was conditional on achieving a pass in SQE1 (except where candidates did not need to sit).

Noting this, the SQE2 pass rate for candidates using the transitional arrangements to complete their qualification was lower than for candidates who passed SQE1 (67% and 89% respectively).

*not reportable as less than 10 candidates

Of the 385 transitional candidates who did not sit SQE1:

• 184 (48%) were LPC transitional candidates, and achieved a pass rate of 69% (n=127)
• 201 (52%) were QLTS transitional candidates and achieved a pass rate of 66% (n=132).

The SRA collects diversity and socio-economic data to help understand how candidates with different characteristics and backgrounds perform in the assessments. The data categories are consistent with data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Social Mobility Commission. Data is collected from candidates via an online monitoring and maximising diversity survey (or demographic data survey), completed ahead of assessment registration. Appendix 1 lists the data reported on in this section.

The large number of characteristics and groups within characteristics recorded in the data collected means that candidate numbers in some of the groups are very small. The complication of small candidate numbers in certain demographic groups is compounded by almost half of candidates (47%) selecting ‘Prefer not to say’ for one or more of the 14 characteristics provided in this report. As a result we have not been able to use multivariate analysis in this report.

Though multivariate analysis is not included for reasons mentioned, initial exploratory analyses suggest that much of the attainment gap evident between groups may be explained by educational and socio-economic factors. However, we cannot draw reliable conclusions from this exploratory analysis yet - we will look at this again when candidate numbers and declaration rates increase.

In the tables below, we present univariate analysis of the outcomes data, which looks at each of the characteristics individually and independently. Tables 5 to 11 provide the following for FLK1, FLK2, SQE1 and SQE2 for each of the 14 characteristics presented:

• The outcome of a Chi-square significance test to indicate whether there are any significant differences (at a 95% confidence level) between the pass rates of the groups. This is indicated in the column header as ‘Yes’ (significant differences) or ‘No’ (no significant differences).
• The proportion of candidates within each group. This is calculated with 100% being all candidates with disclosed data AND being in a group with 10 or more candidates (‘%’ column).
• The percentage pass rate for each group with 10 or more candidates (‘Pass Rate %’ column)

Data in the tables exclude candidates who select ‘Prefer not to say’:

• Fewer than 5% of candidates did not disclose age or sex.
• Fewer than 10% did not disclose ethnicity or disability status or their own educational characteristics.
• Fewer than 20% of candidates did not disclose sexuality, religion, parental education and household socio-economic status.
• Around 25% of candidates did not disclose whether they had undertaken any qualifying work experience.

These tables provide data for all candidates who received marks for each assessment (FLK1, FLK2, SQE1 and SQE2). The data is pooled from the November 2021 and July 2022 assessments for FLK1, FLK2, and SQE1. Where there are fewer than 10 candidates in any group the proportions and pass rates are not reported; this is indicated by greyed out cells in the table.

The full questions asked in the online demographic data survey in relation to each category are available in Appendix 1.

i) Ethnicity

Candidates who reported being in White or Mixed/multiple ethnic groups achieved higher pass rates than Asian/Asian British or Black/Black British. Differences in pass rates between groups were significant for all assessments.

ii) Disability

Candidates who declared a disability achieved a higher pass rate than those who reported no disability in SQE2. The opposite was the case in SQE1.

iii) Age

The majority of candidates taking SQE1 and SQE2 were in the younger age groups. More than half of all candidates were in the 25-34 age group and this group achieved higher pass rates than older candidates.

There were fewer than 10 candidates in the 65+ age group for each assessment and for the 55-64 age group for SQE2. The proportions and pass rates are therefore not provided for these groups.

iv) Sex, Gender and Sexual Orientation

Candidates who reported their sex as male achieved a higher pass rate than female candidates in SQE1, though there was no significant difference between sex groups in SQE2.

Candidates who reported that their sexual orientation was Bi or Gay / Lesbian achieved higher pass rates than Heterosexual / straight candidates in SQE1 assessments, but there were no significant differences in SQE2.

There were fewer than 10 candidates selecting ‘Other’ for sex and sexual orientation, and ‘No’ for their gender being the same as the sex registered at birth for all assessments. The proportions and pass rates are therefore not provided for these groups.

v) Religion or Belief

There were differences in pass rates between religion/belief groups reported by candidates in all assessments. Candidates reporting Hindu, Muslim or Sikh as their religion generally had lower pass rates.

The most frequently indicated group was no religion or belief (approximately 40% of candidates). Fewer than 10 candidates selected Buddhist as their religion for SQE2; the proportion and pass rate are therefore not provided for this group.

vi) Socio-economic background measured by Occupation of Main Household Earner at 14, Type of School Attended and Parental Education

Candidates who reported that at least one parent attended university achieved higher pass rates in SQE1 assessments, but this factor was not significant in SQE2.

Pass rates were similar across all categories of main household earner occupation, and for the school type attended for the most time between the ages of 11 and 16.

Fewer than 10 candidates did not know the type of school they attended across all assessments. The proportions and pass rates are therefore not provided for this group.

*Group excluded from the Chi-square test of significance

vii) Highest Level of Education, Undergraduate Degree Classification and Qualifying Work Experience Undertaken

Candidates with higher undergraduate degree classifications achieved higher pass rates in SQE1 and SQE2 assessments. There was no effect on pass rates of having an undergraduate degree or not.

All candidates disclosed whether they were already a qualified lawyer or not. Those who were, achieved a higher pass rate at FLK1 but a similar pass rate to those who were not qualified at FLK2.

However, in SQE2 candidates who disclosed that they were not qualified achieved a higher pass rate. Candidates who said they had undertaken qualifying work experience achieved higher pass rates in SQE1 assessments.

There were fewer than 10 candidates with a third class or Commendation for their undergraduate degree for SQE2. The proportions and pass rates are therefore not provided for these groups.

*Group excluded from the Chi-square test

i) Ethics Performance in SQE1

Table 15 shows the mean scores for all candidates along with passing and failing candidates for ethics and non-ethics focussed assessment content across FLK1 and FLK2.

In each case, there is a strong positive correlation between performance on ethics questions and the overall score. Naturally those candidates who have passed the assessments have significantly higher scores than those who have failed.

The mean scores are consistently higher for the ethics items compared to the non-ethics items across all assessments and groups.

For all candidates the mean differences range between 8.5% (FLK2 November 2021) and 19.7% (FLK2 July 2022). With the current data, there appears to be no pattern in mean differences between ethics and non-ethics items across the FLK1 and FLK2 assessments.

The mean differences between the passing and failing candidates are similar for both ethics and non-ethics content, indicating associated performance across the two content areas.

ii) Professional Conduct Performance in SQE2

Professional Conduct and Ethics are assessed pervasively in the SQE2 assessments. Some of the 16 stations contain Professional Conduct matters, and some do not. There is no formula determining which assessments this may fall in, and candidates are required to spot these issues and deal with them appropriately.

The matters related to these topics do not therefore have their own assessment criteria allocated to them. Examiners award discretionary credit under the criteria related to the application of the law.

Kaplan SQE is the End Point Assessment Organisation for solicitor apprentices. Solicitor apprentices are required to pass SQE1 during their apprenticeship as an on-programme assessment. SQE2 is the synoptic end-point assessment (EPA).

Apprentices must pass SQE1 and have met all of the minimum requirements of their apprenticeship (including the gateway review) before they can attempt SQE2. When an apprentice has passed SQE2, they have completed the EPA for the Solicitor Apprenticeship Standard and passed the SQE.

Information about how solicitor apprentices and their training providers can engage with the SQE is available on our website.

Solicitor apprentices made up a small proportion of overall candidate numbers for each assessment as indicated in Table 16. This group has a higher pass rate across each of the three assessments when compared to the first attempt pass rates for all candidates for SQE1 Nov 2021, SQE2 Apr 2022 and SQE1 Jul 2022 (see Table 16).

Of particular note is the 100% pass rate for the SQE2 assessment in April 2022. Whilst this is the only SQE2 assessment with outcome data so far, it suggests the apprentice candidates are well prepared for the end-point assessment and applying their legal knowledge in skills based assessments.

* Proportion passing only FLK1 or FLK2 at their first attempt of SQE1

We are committed to making sure that a candidate is not disadvantaged by reason of a disability in demonstrating their competence and we will make reasonable adjustments to methods of assessment for candidates with a disability (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010) to achieve this. We will also consider reasonable requests to accommodate candidates with other conditions which impact on their ability to undertake the SQE. All SQE candidates are assessed against the same standards set out in the Statement of Solicitor Competence and the Statement of Legal Knowledge, and must reach the Threshold Standard to qualify.

Our approach to reasonable adjustments, including how we communicate with candidates and the arrangements we most frequently make, is set out in the Reasonable Adjustments Policy.

Throughout this year, 264 reasonable adjustment plans were delivered. In the small number of cases where candidates declined the adjustments initially offered, a revised plan was proposed and agreed based on evidence provided by the candidate.

The average time taken between receiving a completed application for reasonable adjustments (with full accompanying evidence) to proposing an adjustment to a candidate has decreased through the year. It was around 12 working days in November 2021 and around 4.5 working days in July 2022. This improved as the process became more refined and the team became more established following the first assessment. Joint working and management of the reasonable adjustment requests with Pearson VUE was altered to improve completion rates.

Before the assessment, considerable time is spent with some candidates who have complex reasonable adjustment plans to ensure that the candidate is supported. Our standard guidance to candidates is to obtain their supporting evidence and make their reasonable adjustment request as early as possible. If supporting documentation is not available at the time of submitting the form, documentation should be submitted at the earliest opportunity.

i) Pass rates for candidates with reasonable adjustment plans

Table 19 shows pass rates for candidates with reasonable adjustment plans alongside pass rates for the full cohort for SQE1 and SQE2 assessments this year. A Chi-square significance test was used to see if there were differences (at a 95% confidence level) between the reasonable adjustment candidate pass rates and the overall cohort. This is indicated in the final column as ‘Yes’ (significant differences) or ‘No’ (no significant differences).

Pass rates for candidates with reasonable adjustment plans were similar to the full cohort for all SQE1 assessments. However, there was some evidence to suggest that the pass rate for candidates with reasonable adjustment plans was higher in SQE2.

Noting that we only have outcomes from one SQE2 assessment at the time of writing this report, we will monitor future assessments for emerging trends.

*Significant where any differences between the groups are unlikely to be due to chance

ii) Nature of conditions and adjustments made

Plans were in place for candidates with a wide range of disabilities, long-term and fluctuating conditions. Adjustments were also agreed for some candidates who were pregnant/nursing mothers.

The most common conditions amongst candidates with reasonable adjustment plans were neurological conditions such as dyslexia, autism, dyspraxia and ADHD.

The majority of candidates had more than one adjustment in their plan. These were specific to the actual assessments and in some cases different arrangements were required on the SQE2 written and oral assessments.

The most common adjustments were as follows, with similar patterns seen across SQE1 and SQE2.

1. Up to 25% extra time or stop the clock (STC) - STC means that a candidate is given a prescribed amount of time that they can use for breaks - the candidates can take as many breaks and decide on the length of the breaks up to the prescribed agreed amount of STC time.
2. Own assessment room
3. Access to medicine, snacks or water during the assessment
4. More than 25% extra time or stop the clock (STC)
5. Zoom text or adjustable font, contrast, etc.
6. Reader / recorder / scribe

Other bespoke provisions were also arranged for candidates where evidence supported this. Examples of these included:

• Use of noise-cancelling headphones
• Use of a laptop
• Use of a screen overlay
• Sitting for the duration of the oral assessments
• Being seated in close proximity to an exit or bathroom
• Provision for stretching exercises during breaks
• Access to medical devices to monitor health conditions.

JAWS screen reader technology is available as a possible adjustment, although no candidates required or requested it in this period.

After each assessment, candidates are invited to complete a survey to provide feedback about their experience. The questions in the survey (Appendix 2) relate to:

• the SQE website
• operations
• assessment specification and questions
• reasonable adjustments
• SQE in Welsh
• apprentices
• the overall SQE service.

Candidates can provide general comments via a free-text box. They can also provide their contact details should they wish to be contacted further about their feedback.

These surveys have provided valuable information for Kaplan and SRA to consider during these early stages of the SQE. All responses are collated and analysed, with action plans put in place where improvements can be made, or new opportunities and solutions can be explored.

Feedback from candidates and stakeholders has also been collected and reviewed and considered from various other sources during the course of delivering the assessments.

Table 20 summarises some of the key areas brought to our attention for improvement, and what we are doing in response.