This article is written by Dr Giles Proctor, CEO of The College of Legal Practice, drawing on student survey data and direct feedback to explore the realities of the SQE1 exam experience and the challenges candidates face.

The SQE1 exam is widely perceived as challenging, with significant concerns being raised about time pressure, question style, and fairness. While many candidates succeed through rigorous preparation, those who fail often feel unprepared for the real exam’s demands and face substantial emotional and financial stress. At the College, we decided to ask our students how they found the exam experience, through surveys we shared with our students in September and October 2025. We also asked not just about their experiences, but what they had learnt from the experience, to suggest improvements to the exam regime.

The purpose of the surveys and the resulting analysis in this article is to put flesh on the bones of lots of student anecdotal feedback we were receiving; we wanted some clear intelligence about the experience of students in the evolving SQE exam environment. We surveyed SQE cohorts including those from 2023 onwards and are very grateful to all our alumni and current students who gave up their time to participate.

What we covered in the surveys

We focused with our students in the surveys on the actual student experience of the SQE exam process, the physical reality of the exam and its impact on students. We could not, due to the confidentiality agreements put in place by Kaplan with each SQE candidate, discuss the subject matter content of the papers sat. Usefully, the surveys gave us feedback from both those who passed and those who failed one or more papers.

The key feedback themes emerged as follows.

1. The structure of the exam

The context for this theme is the exam structure. The SQE1 exam asks students to take two papers, both five hours in duration addressing the Functioning Legal Knowledge (FLK) syllabus. Each paper (FLK1 and FLK2) requires students to attempt 180 single best answer multiple choice questions (that breaks down to approximately 1 minute 40 seconds per question). These questions are asked in random sequence within the subjects examined by each paper (so in FLK1, for example, a candidate could field a Contract question, followed by one on Dispute Resolution, then a Business Associations question and so on).

Over 85% of respondents to the survey told us the exam as “challenging” or “very challenging,” regardless of their pass/fail status. Looking at the underlying reasons, approximately 60% of respondents reported that the time available was “short” or “very short,” with this perception more common among those who failed. Common within these responses were the following factors:

• many respondents failing to finish or review the answers they had chosen.
• the lack of time being a product also of the question style; the “single best answer” format was widely criticised for being ambiguous or unfair
• the length of the exam also made the day, for many, exhausting, with mental fatigue affecting performance.

2. The setting and demands of the exam process

The context for survey responses to this factor is the requirement that all candidates for the SQE1 exams register with Kaplan to create and account and book one of the two exam sittings that take place in January and July of each year. These are closed book, online exams; candidates sit them in centres across the UK and overseas, administered by Pearson Vue for Kaplan.

The bookings for these assessments are made by each candidate directly with Kaplan. A fee of £1,934* is payable by the candidate to secure the booking for each exam attempt (with a maximum of three attempts possible in a six-year period). No fee is returned to a candidate who fails one or both papers; to sit a paper or papers again, another fee (subject to the yearly rise which seems to have become the norm) is payable. Looking at cost in the round, a candidate will also have to pay a fee of £2,974* for each attempt of the second exam (SQE2).

The factors about the exam environment in these test centres most frequently raised in survey responses (and about 25-30% of respondents mention these), are:

• Lack of water while taking the exams – water bottles have to be left away from the exam room(s) by candidates
• Uncomfortable centres – this seems to relate to different style seating, arrangements for desk-based PCs, age of the equipment used
• Noise was frequently mentioned – candidates are sometimes in rooms with other taking different assessments (e.g. driving test theory) and movement to and fro of individuals coming in and out, generates a level of noise noted by candidates. Some centres provide ear defenders to candidates to mitigate the effect of this, some do not.

The more general financial factors around the assessment are worth noting. With many self-funding candidates seeking to take out a postgraduate loan (£13,206** for 26-27) to fund their studies through a masters containing SQE preparation, the costs of many masters courses being offered in the sector by preparation course providers leaves no money from the graduate loan to cover the total fee of £4,908* paid to Kaplan by a candidate who passes SQE1, then SQE2 first time.

There are clearly financial barriers that students feedback on in the survey, being the:

• cost of the exams – a minimum of £4,908*
• cost of resit fees
• very short time scales for obtaining a full refund after booking (say to students who decide not to sit SQE1 in that window); cancellation then involves losing a large amount of the SQE1 exam fee paid
• cost of travel and possibly accommodation for at least two nights for SQE1 and possibly three nights for SQE2, to sit the SQE at centres not located near your home
• cost of Master’s courses that exceed the basic graduate loan

This all lead in a number of responses to reference to burnout in survey responses: reports of exhaustion and feeling overwhelmed by the process and concerns about the financial implications of taking the journey to qualification.

Suggestions for improvement to the SQE1 regime

The following suggestions for improvement to the structure, setting and demands of the SQE1 exam regime are repeatedly made by students who contributed to the survey. We suggest these suggestions should be taken on board by the five-year review of SQE1 currently being undertaken by the SRA.

• Review the SQE1 Exam Timing:
  Effectively either increase or decrease the time allowed per paper; and, in either case, or reduce the number of questions, to allow candidates to demonstrate their knowledge without excessive time pressure.

• Improve Question Transparency:
  The provision of more sample questions by Kaplan and some past papers (currently a blanket refusal to do this), that accurately reflect the style and difficulty of the real exam.
  
  Review the “single best answer”-style questions to ensure questions and question scenarios are unambiguous.

• Enhance Accessibility and Fairness:
  It seems sensible to allow one or two water and basic comfort breaks without penalty, alongside the rest period given after the first half of each FLK paper. Candidates are also concerned to ensure reasonable adjustments are consistently and fairly applied for candidates with disabilities.

• Reduce Financial Barriers:
  The focus could be on considering lowering resit fees or allowing one free resit, especially given the high cost and stress associated with failure.

• Improve Communication:
  Students ask for clearer guidance on exam logistics, marking schemes, and what to expect on the day. This would continue and accelerate the work proposed under the SRAs current action plan linked to its ‘Differential Outcomes’ forum held regularly with providers and other stakeholders.

Conclusion

I will finish by reflecting on a students detailed response to our survey, which highlights the themes many students expressed in their reflections on their SQE 1 experience.

“[The] exam experience as a whole was stressful, from booking to sitting. Filling in the sitting form for wherever and whenever they choose to assign your exam seat was stressful. Making the decision months in advance then not being able to change at all without losing almost £2000 was stressful. Not having any formal past papers was stressful. Not being able to discuss with anyone that's sat the exam beforehand was stressful”.

It’s clear from our student feedback and their suggestions for improvement that

• The SQE1 exam is too long and should be shortened, together with the sequencing of questions into subject clusters; the randomising of question presentation serves no educational purpose and is merely another barrier to student performance
• The booking process is too clumsy and attendant costs for exam sits, resits, travel and accommodation are a significant barrier to candidates seeking to access a career as a solicitor. The high direct and indirect costs bite especially for self-funding students and those with less social capital and the economic means.

I have come to the conclusion that under the new SQE regime, we are putting too many barriers in the way of those wanting to qualify. This year there is a change of regime at the SRA, both with Sarah Rapson stepping in as SRA CEO and a new Director of Training and Education to be announced. The ability to take stock and respond to the voice of the candidates at the heart of the new SQE exam regime is there; lets hope the wit and intelligence to do so is also deployed by the SRA.

*SQE exam fees for 2025-26. They are likely to increase for 2026-27. Please see SRA’s website for more details.

**Maximum amount available for a Master’s Loan for 26-27, eligibility applies, please see the Gov.uk website for further details.