1) It’s just being non committal. The last thing they want is to bring in a whole load of trainees on the SQE and then for some random reason bring in a trainee on a LPC training contract (maybe mitigating circumstances) and everyone else to complain why they didn’t get that opportunity. I can’t really see firms offering the LPC route any more though - it’s a lot more hassle for them as there are many more regulations and processes they have to go through. I don’t know what angle there would be for arguing against completing SQE2 when everyone else is doing that stage, and especially where some of the diversity concerns with the SQE are much more associated with SQE1.
2) Firms generally don’t want trainees submitting their previous experiences as QWE, as it undermines their training contract. Unfortunately firms have little control over it though as the decision lies with you rather than them.
3) People are qualifying via the QWE/SQE route. But I am seeing plenty do people choosing to do this when they haven’t got an NQ role lined up. To be able to compete in the NQ job market, your two years of QWE needs to be of the same level, complexity, standard, variety and possible even with the same type of clients as those you will be competing for the NQ role with. You are not going to be able to step into a litigation role without litigation experience. You are going to struggle to get into large international firms if most of the litigation work you have done is with smaller, domestic companies or simple disputes. You therefore have to make sure your QWE allows you to compete for the jobs you are aiming for upon qualification.
Hi @Jessica Booker really appreciate this, thanks for the insight.
On point 2 - That makes sense from the firm's perspective, they wouldn't want their TC undermined in that sense. What if for instance, you don't submit previous experiences as QWE to avoid the firm's being put off by you and to therefore become more attractive to them? Most firms I have spoken to said they would just disregard the previous experiences I had as the 2-year TC programme is what they would use to sign off the QWE on their end. I guess most of what I'm saying, though, is in relation to how I would be viewed as a candidate regarding this, rather than the mechanics of how QWE actually works/what the firm's sign off as QWE.
On point 3 - So in that sense would that be a negative of the SQE, generally speaking, if you don't secure a TC and decide to qualify via previous experiences for QWE? Would it not be a struggle to get your foot in the NQ market as a fresh SQE graduate with little experience of the same level, complexity, standard and variety as other people I'll be competing with (people with NQ-level type experience and people like myself) no?