A question about exam design became a proxy for a larger argument about merit, race and professional standards, and the verdict was a decisive Yes. The online chamber heard the changes as a lowering of the bar even when the reform itself was framed as a response to an excessive testing burden.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case put the objection bluntly: “Making things easier is totally wrong, standards must be at a high level.” Other Yes voters argued that fewer questions meant less evidence of legal knowledge, less testing of pressure-handling and an unacceptable response to unequal pass rates; one called it “dumbing down under the guise of equity & equality”. The loudest strand treated accessibility as a threat to merit, with several invoking DEI as the motive behind the change.
No voters made a narrower, more practical case. The strongest rebuttal said that removing questions gives only “six extra seconds per question”, while another argued that the adjustment was “more of an administrative adjustment rather than a DEI initiative”. They pointed to the continuing training required after the exam, the cost and intensity of the existing test, and the distinction between a more manageable paper and a weaker solicitor.
That is where the two sides talked past each other. Yes voters treated any easing of time pressure as a reduced standard; No voters treated the change as a modest correction to an unwieldy assessment, insisting that competence is also shaped by training and practice. One No voice, drawing on experience of the old LPC, called the test “a ridiculously long test”, while a Yes voter answered that “clients do not get an adjusted standard”.
The room’s conclusion was not a detailed judgment on the SRA’s new format so much as a vote of distrust in the reason for changing it: fairness measures were heard as concessions, not safeguards. The reform won the ballot, but the argument that earned the most respect was the warning that “if you lower the bar, you lower the quality”.
25 Opinions
Making things easier is totally wrong, standards must be at a high level. If people want to meet those standards they must meet the challenges required irrespective of ethnicity. It has to be the same for everyone
As someone who is actually doing the SQE, these changes make little difference and has nothing to do with DEI as another comment suggests. It has a 50% pass rate and costs £10k minimum to sit with exam fees full price to resit and a limit on resits. You now have to complete 340 questions instead of 360 questions, so still an effing lot of questions.
If you lower the bar, you lower the quality. But few of these people will ever find a job because AI is collapsing recruitment for junior roles across all knowledge work. I thought dinosaurs like me would be culled in favour of young guns who cut their teeth on GPT-3.5 in 2022. It turns out that people with prior experience, using AI as a multiplier, have a brief window through which they can shine before we're all on UBI.
Axiomatically how can it not. This move to dumb down because the exams are ‘harder’ for certain groups is insulting & dangerous & also reflects the idiocy of Bridget Phillipson who thinks easier exams are essential. These people & thoughts are dangerous and is just. > dumbing down under the guise of equity & equality. If the exams are too hard or one hasn’t the intellectual capacity to grasp basic tenants then change careers. Leftist nonsense as always.
Yes, probably like recent changes in any exams. We imported cultures without enough skills (on average) to pass our qualifications and conclusion was we are systematically racists. As this is the last thing people in charge want to be, lowering standards is a price they are happy to pay.
There’s less opportunity to test the full breadth of someone’s legal knowledge. And even if handling pressure wasn’t the purpose of SQE1, it’s still a big part of being a good solicitor. Someone who is book smart but struggles under pressure may not be suited to the profession.
The standards cannot get any lower. The Gray family will lay testament to that. Their brother died because of evil yet the solicitor dealing with the case still has not taken the employer to court to prove vicarious liability. Victims are not front and centre in our system the defence is and big money is. The independence of the law is also questionable!!
I do not approve of reducing standards to improve accessibility. Examinations such as these are meant to be challenging. All people taking the exams should ensure that they are properly prepared for them.
The panic over 'falling legal standards' is pure melodrama when you look at the actual maths. The SRA cut 20 questions, giving candidates a grand total of six extra seconds per question. Claiming that an extra six seconds to read a contract law problem will flood the country with incompetent solicitors is laughable.
Exams should never be changed just because of bame & dei.