This is not a how-to guide on how to pass the SQE1, but it is one person’s experienced and considered take on the process of doing so. I self-studied for SQE1 and sat the Nov 2021 administration. It was the first time the exam was offered, which showed in the chaotic release of results. To give the ending away, I passed SQE1 with 71% on FLK1 and 68% on FLK2, a fair amount above the pass thresholds of 57% and 56%, respectively, and just a tad below the cut-offs for scores within the first quintile, i.e. top 20% of scores.
- MY BACKGROUND
- SELF-STUDY
- EXAM DAY
- POST-EXAM
- RESULTS RELEASE
- CONCLUSION
- HOW TO APPROACH STUDYING
- FAQ
=========================================================================
I. MY BACKGROUND
I do not have legal qualifications or training. I am from a common law country (the U.S.) but one in which law is studied at the graduate level. My bachelor’s and master’s degrees are in a related field (philosophy) and at the time of the exam I had lived in the U.K. for just over two years. In many ways my position as a law neophyte was ideal: I was unencumbered by the nuances of everyday legal practice or the facts of a different legal system that might confound a working lawyer who attempts the SQE1. I did have several clear advantages, namely that I am a native English-speaker, I have an extensive background in standardised multiple-choice-question (MCQ) tests, and I read quite fast. This should not be underestimated, but one can surely improve the relevant skills, as I discuss in detail later.
=========================================================================
II. SELF-STUDY
Due to a delay in my new employment, I was able to study full-time, devoting approximately 5 hours/day for 60 days. I needed all 300 of those hours because the curriculum was entirely novel to me. Since I was not studying with a course I had to find material that was comprehensive, accessible and succinct. And I wanted to have a good amount of realistic practice questions, similar to the official SRA mock exam.* Fortunately I was directed to University of Law’s SQE1 study manuals, which are truly a godsend.** (While I shudder to advertise for UoL, I am consoled by the prospect that I might prevent someone from unnecessarily enrolling in their prep courses.) There are 15 manuals, one per module, structured exactly as in the SQE curriculum.*** Each manual has 8-12 chapters usually with 3 MCQs at the end of each chapter, plus interspersed examples, so the entire series has at least 400 practice questions. I say “usually” because some of the sparser chapters only contain 2 MCQs, but these are concentrated in the lighter/easier manuals (looking at you, Ethics and Legal Services). The questions were easily the best approximation in difficulty and specificity I attempted before the exam: I estimate that the answers to 95% of my SQE1 were contained within the full set of manuals.
*
https://sqe.sra.org.uk/docs/default-source/pdfs/sqe1-sample-questions---final-11-05-2021.pdf
**
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manuals-Functioning-Legal-Knowledge-SQE1/dp/1914219457/
***
https://sqe.sra.org.uk/exam-arrangements/assessment-information/sqe1-assessment-specification
From both a content and practice standpoint UoL was far above what I saw from other providers, although admittedly I was not able to review these firsthand except in snippets that others made available. I have repeatedly heard that QLTS books are excessive and QLTS mocks are too difficult, while BARBRI books and practice are fairly accurate but with some significant information gaps. It strikes me that these providers appeal more to students who prefer learning from videos or following a strict curriculum. But even with a course you are essentially doing guided self-study, because you must find what is the best way to learn for yourself. Facebook and Whatsapp groups feature many honest provider assessments from people with different backgrounds, as well as some transparently self-promotional posts, and I suggest joining a few to compare notes as well as enliven your study. This is also how I met other people to review the official SQE1 mock exam over Zoom. Correct answers but not explanations are provided, hence the utility of discussing your choices and rationales with fellow students.
=========================================================================
III. EXAM DAY
Mine was remarkably efficient. I scheduled the tests in Edinburgh, which allowed me to simply cycle 1.5 miles to the Pearson centre without distraction or inconvenience in the early morning. There were just over 10 of us, and the time from arrival to being instructed to begin was no more than 45 minutes—the virtues of a less busy testing location. For control freaks or the truly unencumbered, I recommend scheduling outside the major English cities, given the possibility of logistical problems multiplied by the exam’s significance. In any case I benefitted psychically from the smoothness, which also allowed me to promptly exit the building and cram for 30 minutes in a nearby park between the morning and afternoon sessions each day. (You are allowed to remove your belongings during the intermission. But inside the assessment room you are not allowed to remove clothing, so make sure to wear layers and remove in advance as temperature or nerves dictate.) Once seated I inserted the provided earplugs and donned the provided headset to block out noise, then checked the provided dry-erase pad and marker. When the test began I quickly charted out how far along I should be at every 10-question interval, counting backwards from 153 minutes. That is, I wrote down that to be on pace I should finish #10 with 136 minutes remaining, #20 with 119 minutes remaining, and so on. I next drew a large 15x5 grid on the dry-erase pad and labelled it #1-15 and (A)-(E)—okay, it was a 16x6 grid—which I replicated on a new sheet after completing every 15 questions. This tactic worked wonderfully to combat the listlessness of scanning 200 words and sporadically clicking a mouse; instead, I was constantly engaged with the screen and my ongoing answer sheet. Even better, I had a physical reminder of which choices I had eliminated (a slash in the corresponding grid square) that facilitated guessing and later reviewing before time was called, and I was also able to count how many questions I was certain about (four slashes or the single correct letter) and how many questions I had narrowed down to only two choices (three slashes; I did not bother to count questions where I had eliminated two or fewer choices). From this I estimated during each FLK1 session that I knew about 40 questions and had a 1/2 probability on another 40 questions or so, i.e. a total of 60/90 or 120/180. For FLK2 three days later I estimated that I knew about 30 questions per session and had a 1/2 probability on another 30 questions or so, i.e. a total of 45/90 or 90/180, which made this result extremely dicey for me. The whole exercise took me at most an extra ten minutes, but it was worthwhile because I was psychically buoyed and could see exactly where I was relative to the clock and a passable mark. I really can’t stress this enough: these exams and their ilk test endurance as much as knowledge, so one should revise in progressively longer sessions as test day approaches.
=========================================================================
IV. POST-EXAM
In the lead-up to the release of results, the conversation in Whatsapp and Facebook groups seemed to converge upon the exam being much harder than the 90-question SRA sample. This was summarily denied by an SRA representative, who claimed that the exam questions were drawn from the same pool as the sample questions. I have no reason to doubt this, or to believe that there was more than one copy of the exam, as I cannot conceive any advantage for the SRA if they mislead candidates as to the exam’s difficulty or content. Given that the SQE’s predecessor consistently passed at least 50% of test-takers and that the SQE is professedly intended to open up the lawyering profession, it would be strange if the SQE by design or accident did not replicate or exceed this pass rate. (Unless one proposes that the SRA’s defence in such a scenario would be that more people are nevertheless able to pursue this more affordable route, which would entail many more people are failing in the first stage…) Both during the test and afterwards I did not feel the test varied substantially from the sample, and if anything it was easier. Over the course of 360 questions there are only so many things that can plausibly be tested in the high-stakes environment, and by the end of both FLK1 and FLK2 I was sure that concepts had been recycled.
=========================================================================
V. RESULTS RELEASE
My memory is that there was an initial conflict or ambiguity involving the November SQE1 scores release date and the April SQE2 registration deadline. It was only several weeks after the SQE1 administration was over that the 20 January date was fixed for online score release. I hope the SRA has now figured out the necessary spacing to save candidates grief, especially as the LPC disappears and the SQE becomes administered more frequently. The release was scheduled for 20Jan 3pm GMT at the latest, with a notification email to accompany the exact moment. What happened, as shared on Whatsapp, was that at 2:55pm some people were able to log in but only saw their FLK1/2 results and not the other; some people were able to log in and saw the names and results of other candidates (!!!); and the vast majority of people, including me, were not able to log in but rather encountered a screen that said results release was postponed temporarily due to technical error. There was no word from the SRA for over an hour, at which time the notification email did materialise (it appears SRA mass emails are sent in staggered waves) and everyone successively tried to log in…and still encountered the postponement screen. Finally around 8pm, an SRA email arrived confirming the troubled rollout and assuring us that results would be available by 10pm. To recap:
1. There was no email at or before 3pm as guaranteed indicating results were up. (To be fair to the SRA, results weren’t in fact up!)
2. This email was sent out an hour after the SRA’s self-imposed deadline, and precisely when no one was able to access their results.
3. For five hours there was no widespread communication between the SRA and candidates even acknowledging the snafu.
4. When that communication did arrive, it did nothing to assuage people’s doubts that the results if/when reported would be accurate. (This became a live concern when some candidates were able to view the scores of other candidates!)
I wasn’t terribly fussed by this sequence, but I know that many people were in more precarious positions than I regarding the SQE2 registration deadline, in addition to being emotionally whiplashed by an utterly predictable and avoidable mess. The second confirmation of results email did arrive at 10pm, but by that time I had already been alerted in a Whatsapp group and checked my results. [24/02/22 UPDATE: people sitting SQE1 in July will not receive their results before the registration date, and thus not be able to sit, for SQE2 in October. Instead they will have to wait until 2023 to sit the SQE2 and qualify. This delay is anticipated to thwart those who take the SQE1 in 2023 as well. I think SRA deserves a lot of criticism for being uncaring and hope they immediately rectify the schedule, which hurts both SQE candidates and their own reputation.]
=========================================================================
VI. CONCLUSION
My intention in writing this, other than committing the experience to print, was to clarify some common myths and misconceptions surrounding SQE1, among them that one needs a test prep course or even legal study/work experience to pass. If this exam is at all relevant to your career prospects and you can find sufficient time and discipline to study, then you can succeed. But I must expand on these two quantities. I believe allocating sufficient time is the main hurdle: most other test-takers juggle far more responsibilities than I did, and deal with the law on a more intimate, everyday basis that displaces the carefree vantage point and reservoirs of time conducive to study. Next, the study must be conducted precisely, through iterative whittling down of information to testable portions, i.e. the type of fact that would be tested in an MCQ on an assessment of how well one grasps foundational legal principles and knowledge. To take a broad example, the SRA explicitly refutes the notion that dates, case names, and statutes will be tested, with only a few named exceptions. Yet I often noticed people in Whatsapp groups fetishising these trivia. Far more important is to learn the legal precedent and its few counterexamples/nuances, then work on identifying these within a practice question and answer choices.
Please remember this is only one person’s reflection on only one part of the SQE route, moreover that of a non-lawyer and non-Brit. I have no qualms about admitting that in terms of legal credentials and expertise, I am no more qualified after passing this exam than before. But I hope my experience offers some general wisdom about revision, and particular comfort for those who feel they can hack it alone or are better off doing so. The scope of the challenge may seem overwhelming, but it’s inflated by students and commentators drawing a false equivalence between a law/conversion degree and the SQE, as well as by test prep businesses who have seen at most one administration of the SQE1 if they have seen any.
=========================================================================
VII. HOW TO APPROACH STUDYING
I registered for the test two months in advance and mapped out a nice week-to-week schedule—including time to take and review the single SRA mock exam and a few proprietary MCT mocks—that promptly fell to bits after I found out contracts required more than three days. (Rookie mistake, and reminder that I am not a lawyer.) I did read (most of) each UoL manual except for Land Law and Property Practice at least once. These are the most idiosyncratic and culturally British subjects tested, and from a sociological angle they are fascinating. But from a strictly test-taking perspective they are esoteric, illogical, absurd, and none of this again in a helpful way. Make sure you have the basics before ascending to higher planes of land registry contemplation or, to divulge my strategy here, study the rest and hope for the best. After the first read-through of all the manuals (minus the two) I used my initial highlights to make painstaking outlines of the most content-heavy modules, which helped me filter and internalise material, but most of all pleased my obsessive personality.
I assume most people attempting the SQE have background in law and have thus acquired the fundamentals of Contract, Tort, Trusts, Wills and Criminal Law. But to a beginner this reasoning was far more complex than the assortment of facts comprising Business Law, Dispute Resolution and Criminal Practice. The English Legal System and Constitutional/Administrative/EU Law modules are familiar and readily assimilable for anyone interested in British politics, although inherently easier for those resident in England or EU countries. As for Ethics, Legal Services and Solicitors’ Accounts, there are certain overarching principles that once acquired will render the questions largely formalities. However, there is also danger of solving accounts in the completely opposite way. In fact, this was the lone occasion where I was dissatisfied with the UoL manual. It took cross-referencing several resources and being asked to teach the material to another student before I could adequately represent things on the page, at which point I received a shock from the SRA questions, which define their terms slightly differently from all the resources I’d seen. This underlines the importance of reviewing the official sample questions, which though distressingly brief (only 1/4 the length of the actual combined SQE) properly set one’s expectations of content and convention. What was most helpful in the end was indeed just that: going through the mock with some other motivated students, comparing our different justifications for choosing and eliminating answers.
Truthfully, I did not study very precisely, or rather I maximised within certain FLK1 subjects and left a large chunk of FLK2 for a few cram sessions with someone else’s notes. Test-takers in the first cohort widely agreed that the FLK1 content was easier and the FLK2 test was harder, but the virtually equivalent passing marks on FLK1 and FLK2 suggest that the tests themselves had offsetting factors. I recall FLK1 as being more convoluted, with deceptive questions and answers, whereas FLK2 was almost factual potpourri. Regardless, my approach is wholly inadvisable: just study evenly for and pass both exams in a single attempt. The 2.5 days between FLK1 and FLK2 are critical for a final run through material, and hopefully one is emboldened as well by a positive encounter with FLK1.
=========================================================================
VIII. FAQ
Are University of Law’s ~400 questions enough?
If used correctly, then probably yes. First, there is literally no substitute for the SRA’s sample material, created by the same people who write the test. If you don’t complete and review these 90 questions before the exam you ought to be held liable for negligence. Adding this number to the UoL curriculum gives you above 500 useful practice questions.
Now, let’s think about when and why we do practice questions:
—to learn and reinforce material
—to gain familiarity with test format and style
—to practice timing and endurance
UoL places 2-3 questions at the end of each chapter, so they are extremely convenient for the first objective. The third objective, though still important and too often ignored, does not strictly require you to attempt questions; instead you could progressively extend your study sessions, and practice at the end of the workday or while slightly tired. It is the second objective, however, that distinguishes good-quality mocks from the bad, misleading, counterproductive mocks.
For such a large MCQ test, it borders on impossible to know all or even a large majority of the correct answers. (The median scores were 62% and 58% for FLK1 and FLK2, respectively, and not a single person scored 90+%.) So the standard should not be to retain some incredible quantity of material. Instead, you should expect to know half the material and then use the format of the test to your advantage, i.e. eliminate choices (as per my grid approach) and make educated guesses. Eliminating choices requires reading closely and parsing the differences, sometimes slight, between answers. Making educated guesses requires identifying the relevant legal aspect(s) being examined and using your existing knowledge to arrive at the likely answer.
Based on the SRA examples and the first SQE1 administration, the test appears to be something like 1/4 informational recall questions and 3/4 situational questions. The best way to practice informational recall questions is to answer questions that are realistic in their specificity and phrasing, in order to internalise the accurate level of detail. The best way to practice situational questions is to read questions and answers with similar wording, in order to focus on the conceptual and verbal distinctions. This is exactly what UoL questions force you to do. They investigate your knowledge and understanding of the most important concepts in each chapter—no random trivia, arbitrary facts, or petty observations. I have generally not seen other providers’ mocks and cannot fairly comment on them…but I have seen QLTS questions, so I know they are guilty of all that and worse. These faults nullify the principal virtue of QLTS, its library of 30 mock tests with 90 questions each. The reason they can provide this much content is that they essentially recycled their MCT textbooks, including all the existing typos and outdated info. QLTS is encouraging you to read faster, remember more, and feel far, far more stressed than you need to.
Where can I purchase UoL manuals?
Check out the UoL store online or Amazon. Purchases of new books give access to online questions I believe, although I didn’t end up using these. Books can be purchased individually or as a discounted set (FLK1 only, FLK2 only, or both FLK1 and FLK2). If you’re looking to purchase the full set, try asking UoL if you can preview material, as I’ve heard a copy of the Ethics manual is potentially offered as a sample. The truly cost-conscious can search online for secondhand sellers but are advised to avoid copies where the questions are marked up. Attempting the questions is a significant source of the books’ value.
What if the UoL manuals are outdated/the content has changed?
I wouldn’t worry—the law as tested by the SQE has not changed so substantially in the last 12 months. I have a feeling it’s UoL trying to undercut the market for secondhand books. Yes the tax brackets are different, which you can and should confirm online. But I’m pretty sure that they give all the details for these tax calculations in the test anyway. Regarding the lack of mocks, yes that’s a problem of going self-study, but I don’t believe the flawed QLTS mocks are worth the trouble (and certainly not the cost!) and BARBRI doesn’t seem to have comprehensive mocks either (no one ever reports how they did on BARBRI mocks, leading me to believe that they just offer small problem sets). So if you truly understand all 500 questions in the SRA sample and UoL books (truly understand means being able to tell why the correct answer is correct and the four incorrect answers are incorrect) then you should be as prepared as anyone for the question style and format.
Are there providers who give access for SQE1 mocks only?
Not any that I know. I read that back in the MCT days, QLTS sold mocks-only access to someone who asked. But they take their IP very seriously now, so I doubt they will entertain the offer. You may be able to work out a deal with one of the smaller providers to access their collection of mocks, but the quality would be less certain.
What do you think about the OUP online SQE1 bundle? (
https://global.oup.com/ukhe/lawresources/SQE/SQEI/)
We won’t get any indication of how OUP users fare until after the July SQE1. In the meantime, it appears to be a serviceable compromise between material and mocks (almost 1000 questions) that is priced equivalently to all 15 UoL manuals. But I believe this is OUP’s first time publishing material for a solicitors’ assessment, so the quality might be uneven or incomplete. Moreover some of the modules are combined together, although this is neither how the content appears on the SRA syllabus nor in my recollection.
