Dr. Morag Duffin

Dr. Morag Duffin

Charity talks to Dr Morag Duffin, Director of Student Success, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at The University of Law, about the SQE Review -from an Educator’s viewpoint.

 in December 2024, The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) commissioned the IFF, a social and market research agency, to conduct an independent review on the premise of evaluating whether the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) is achieving its objectives.

Charity: As an Educator, what is your general view of the SQE as a route to qualification?

Morag: I am supportive of the intention of the SQE as a route to ensure high standards to the admission of solicitors, but I am unsure as to whether the method of assessing these standards is flexible enough to identify less traditionally visible potential or ability.

I also really appreciate the intention of the SQE in creating new and diverse pathways to qualification by, as the SRA describes it, removing ‘artificial and unjustifiable barriers’. I do, however, think that it is important to review how the SQE is working in practice to ensure that it is not inadvertently creating new barriers to diversifying the profession. The published data relating to differential outcomes suggests that it may have done. 

Charity: How does the SQE fare in contrast with completing the LPC, GDL or traditional LLB law degree? 

Morag: The SQE route does provide new pathways to qualification by the decoupling of the assessments and the training provision. This benefits some candidates, but for others it takes away that ease or certainty of wraparound provision that the LPC offers. Many of our students, particularly disabled students, are still electing to take the LPC route over the SQE as it is a known entity and there is less uncertainty over (and less administration required for) reasonable adjustments.

Charity: There seem to be concerns about the pass rate (in particular for the SQE1 assessments). 

For example, in October 2024, the pass rate hit an all-time low of 44%. What do you think are the contributing factors?  and

Morag: It is hard to define the contributing factors from the published data. What is interesting is that the pass rate was lower than previous sittings for candidates irrespective of splits, for instance there were lower pass rates for all degree classes and for all demographic groups. 

Charity: Additionally, there is a persistent attainment gap issue (differential outcomes by ethnicity-specifically impacting black candidates. 

To date the causes have yet to be identified and no solutions established.

What do you think could be causing this “persistent issue”?  and 

Morag: Many reasons have been proposed that could be contributing to this ‘persistent issue’. The SRA has commissioned several pieces of research into the differences in outcomes by ethnicity for progressional legal assessments and has identified a whole range of potential causes, for instance: 

• socio-economic background

• school and university outcomes

• fitting in and support

• access to legal work experience

• discrimination and bias

• institutional/professional culture

What the SRA hasn’t yet published research on, is whether there is a role that the assessment itself or the wider qualification route plays in these differential outcomes. This is what the SRA and education providers need to understand. The SRA is currently working on analysing the SQE data. Education providers also hope to do the same using detailed performance data by demographics from the SRA. Our current analysis is dependent on our students providing us with the information and many are understandably reticent to do so.

Our University of Law (ULaw )students aren’t surprised that there is a gap in outcomes, they are understandably very concerned that it exists, but they are not sure why it does. They study incredibly hard and understandably can’t understand why there are differences in outcomes depending on a person’s ethnicity. It is important for us to listen to our students, and understand their experience, but it is equally important to remember that it is not for our students to work out why there are differential outcomes or how to address them, that is the job of education providers and the SRA. 

From my perspective, the SQE may have the potential for the SRA to achieve its goal of advancing social mobility in the legal profession.

Charity: What solutions would you as an Educator suggest to remedy this? 

Morag: As an Educator who works in the equalities space, for me the solution is for education providers to be able to understand their own institutional outcomes in detail, so that the impact of any work undertaken to reduce the gaps can be effectively evaluated and practice changed accordingly.

At ULaw our work to address differential outcomes is threefold.

1. We are listening to our students to understand where we need to change as a provider. Our paid student Diversity and Inclusion Advocates provide us with their lived experience of the SQE so that we can deliver more appropriate support and make relevant institutional change.  We take a non-deficit approach, it is not the students who are lacking something, but the fact that we as an institution are placing barriers preventing our students from succeeding. These are the barriers we must remove.

2. We are working with the SRA as well as wider stakeholders in the legal sector to advocate for a greater understanding of the assessment process and differential outcomes.

3. We are working to address our awarding gaps at an undergraduate level through our Access and Participation Plan. One of the intervention strategies in our plan aims to mitigate the risk that as a legal education provider, we replicate the inequalities of the legal profession. Within this intervention strategy we are committed to a range of activities from academic writing support to curriculum development work, increasing staff diversity and improving staff training.

Charity: What do you perceive to be the positive aspects of the SQE?  and 

Morag: The SQE provides different pathways to qualification, providing more choice for candidates in how they qualify as a solicitor. Candidates can choose whether they want to complete a training course, what length course they would like to do, or if they would like to self-study. 

Another key advantage for candidates is the flexibility that Qualifying Work Experience (QWE) provides, removing the need for a formal training contract. 

Finally, the skills assessment aspect of the SQE may be preferable for candidates who feel they will perform better in that form of assessment or feel that the skills focus will prepare them better to be able to succeed as a solicitor.

Charity: The negative aspects of the SQE?

Morag: By splitting assessment from education, the SQE also splits off support. Candidates who take the assessment without having taken a training course have none of the support (both academic and pastoral) that the traditional LPC route provides. Also, the training providers have less understanding of the performance of their students to be able to tailor their provision and wider support to their students. It also makes it more challenging for training providers to understand what they need to do in terms of institutional change to address differential outcomes.

Charity: As an Educator, what advice and guidance would you give to those wishing to qualify through the SQE route? 

Morag: I would advise them to carefully research the different options available in terms of preparation for the assessments, chose what is most appropriate for their needs and to reach out for support.

Charity: What aspects of the SQE do you think could be improved to enable the SRA to achieve its goal of advancing social mobility in the legal profession? and 

Morag: From my perspective, the SQE may have the potential for the SRA to achieve its goal of advancing social mobility in the legal profession. I think what is not yet clear is which aspects should be improved, because we do not yet have the full understanding of which aspects are working, and which aspects aren’t working. This is why I believe the SRA needs to undertake a full review of the appropriateness and effectives of the SQE assessments, as well as the appropriateness and effectives of the entire qualification route. 

Charity: What feasible steps does the SRA need to take to ensure they achieve this?

Morag: The first step I think the SRA needs to take is to not be afraid to review the effectiveness of the SQE assessment regime and not be afraid to make changes if it is not advancing social mobility in the legal profession. To do this, the SRA needs to continue to work with education providers and to provide them with detailed institutional data so they can understand their institutional gaps and measure if the work they are doing is making a difference. ■

Dr Morag Duffin

Director of Student Success, 

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at The University of Law

https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-morag-duffin-aa137165/

Interviewed by 

Charity Mafuba 

Commissioning Editor and Director, 

Solicitor (England and Wales), New York Attorney