(a) The position prior to the SQE

To contextualise the study in this paper, brief consideration must be given to the historical development of the relationship between vocational legal training and the academic study of law, and the role that the law school has traditionally played in balancing the considerable tension between these two elements.

The debate over the position of the law school in delivering academic and vocational legal tuition has dominated discourse in the field of legal education since Blackstone’s exposition of his view on the perceived inadequacies of the legal training regime in 1768.Footnote ⁵ Since then, various reviews have transfigured the role of university law schools from being absent altogether to playing a central part in delivering the requisite training for prospective solicitors.Footnote ⁶ The natural starting point when considering the beginning of the prescriptive, ‘core’ element of undergraduate legal education is the Ormrod Report in 1971. This proposed the introduction of three stages which candidates had to pass to qualify as a solicitor: academic; professional/ vocational; and work-based.Footnote ⁷ This essentially transformed the legal profession into a ‘graduate profession’Footnote ⁸ and it led, in 1972, to the requirement for candidates seeking to enter the legal profession to undertake some form of university legal education.Footnote ⁹

The vocational stage was, at the time, the centrally set and assessed Law Society Finals (LSFs). In 1993, the LSFs were replaced with the Legal Practice Course (LPC), which moved away from the centralised assessment regime of the LSFs and gave approved providers the power to award the relevant qualification. The academic stage was passed by completing a QLD. A QLD is a qualification that is recognised by the SRA for the purpose of permitting graduates to proceed to the vocational stage of solicitor training under the LPC system and represents the academic stage of the model proposed by the Ormrod report. One of the defining features of the QLD has been the mandatory study of a number of ‘core’ foundation modules. Initially there were five compulsory subjects which became seven by 1995 following the addition of equity and trusts, and EU law.Footnote ¹⁰ This, coupled with the expansion of the content of existing foundations (such as ‘constitutional law’ becoming ‘constitutional and administrative law’ for example) led Twining to coin the phrase the ‘creeping core’ and argue that the undergraduate law curriculum was becoming ‘overloaded’.Footnote ¹¹ This expansion attracted much criticism from commentators at the time, including Birks.Footnote ¹² However, despite wide condemnation by the academy, the ‘core’, minimum standard undergraduate modules for professional qualification purposes were formalised in 1999, when the Law Society (now the SRA) and the Bar Standards Board (BSB) issued a joint statement mandating that the seven foundations of legal knowledge (the Foundations) must be covered in a QLD (the Joint Statement).Footnote ¹³ The 2013 Legal Education and Training Review (LETR) concluded that there was no case to either extend or reduce the Foundations.Footnote ¹⁴

With the introduction and subsequent expansion of the Foundations, law schools lost some flexibility in how they structured the content of their law degrees if they wanted to provide students with a degree which would enable them to qualify as a solicitor or barrister. Provision became increasingly indistinguishable. This is supported by various empirical studies: a project undertaken by Vaughan around 2019 found that out of 86 law schools only 12 (14%) made a QLD optional for students and that undergraduate law courses tended to look ‘remarkably similar’ in design.Footnote ¹⁵ The study noted that almost all law schools teach in blocks or modules that primarily correspond to the Foundations. Vaughan’s study reiterates and reinforces similar points expressed by other commentators,Footnote ¹⁶ including Harris and Beinart’s Survey of Law Schools 2004, in which they found that 86 out of 99 institutions offered undergraduate QLDs, and therefore offered the Foundations as part of their core offering.Footnote ¹⁷ There is therefore a consistent series of data sets which demonstrate the similarity of undergraduate provision offered by law schools under the old regulatory regime. This poses a question of particular interest, which pertains to the reason why such homogeneity exists. The remainder of this sub-section therefore focuses on the extent to which this is currently explained in the literature and provides an introduction to institutional theory.

Hammond-Sharlot suggests that the homogeneous provision of undergraduate legal education can be explained by reference to institutional theory, in that the organisations within the field (university law schools) have all isomorphed, ie changed to be the same as one another.Footnote ¹⁸ Institutional theory suggests that all organisations are impacted by their external conditions and that, ultimately, they will respond in predictable ways to those external circumstances.Footnote ¹⁹ As DiMaggio and Powell explain, ‘… once disparate organizations in the same line of business [such as individual law schools] are structured into an actual field (… by competition, the state, or the professions), powerful forces emerge that lead them to become more similar to one another’.Footnote ²⁰

This high degree of predictability leads to the isomorphic effect across corporate groupings. DiMaggio and Powell contend that isomorphism can take three forms: coercive (pressure of external influence such as a regulator); normative (pressure to do things the way they have always been done in the sector to meet some sort of standard); and mimetic (influence of what other institutions are doing).Footnote ²¹ DiMaggio and Powell acknowledge that ‘This typology is an analytic one: the types are not always empirically distinct’ and ‘intermingle in an empirical setting’.Footnote ²² The theoretical basis for isomorphism, in whatever form, is that an organisation which meets the needs of its external environment is viewed as being legitimate, which in turn contributes to its long-term organisational survival.Footnote ²³

Hammond-Sharlot argues that law schools are a classic example of both coercive and normative isomorphism, whereby the external influence of regulator(s) such as the SRA and the BSB via the Joint Statement, or simply the knowledge needed to progress into the profession, drove the development of very similar undergraduate offerings.Footnote ²⁴ In theoretical terms, she argues that coercive isomorphism has occurred through external regulation by the regulatory bodies which has put universities under pressure to conform to the ‘norm’ of a particular provision or structure, thus restricting their autonomy. She further argues that the element of normative isomorphism stems from a pressure to conform to specific norms and practices within the delivery of legal education – that is to say that things should be done the way they have always been done.Footnote ²⁵

Moreover, the SRA and the BSB are not the only regulatory bodies which exert pressure on law schools and universities. Over-regulation of the university sector more generally has arguably encroached on law schools’ ability to deliver a liberal legal education (although these other regulatory pressures are not necessarily labelled as coercive isomorphism in the literature). Liberal legal education is a term which is not formally defined,Footnote ²⁶ but is described by Guth and Ashford as ‘… one which does not focus on education for a particular purpose other than education itself. It is not aimed at preparing students for a particular job or profession and is not concerned with notions such as employability.’Footnote ²⁷ The other external regulatory pressures are the rapidly increasing influence of the Office for Students,Footnote ²⁸ league tables and key performance indicators such as published graduate outcomes dataFootnote ²⁹ and the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF).Footnote ³⁰ These were all launched following the introduction of,Footnote ³¹ and subsequent increases in, student fees.Footnote ³² These have changed the relationship between students and their institutions towards a more consumer-based model, with demands of students increasing commensurately.Footnote ³³ Law schools have therefore been under considerable and increasing external pressure to deliver degrees which meet the needs of various stakeholders, thus maintaining their legitimacy and safeguarding their existence. In this respect, law schools are coerced into teaching the Foundations, which represent a significant proportion of an undergraduate degree, to help ensure they meet these key performance indicators.

(b) The SQE route to solicitor qualification

The SQE was introduced as part of the SRA’s Training for Tomorrow programme in response to LETR.Footnote ³⁴ LETR called for regulators to focus on the standards required of legal professionals at the point of qualification and on an ongoing basis but did not recommend the introduction of centralised assessments such as the SQE. Under the LPC system the study of law is mandatory in that students must acquire foundational legal knowledge through either a QLD or law conversion course and then undertake a practice-oriented training course at postgraduate level in the form of the LPC. Undergraduate and vocational study of law remained largely separate under the LPC system. The notable exception was the handful of SRA-approved MLaw LPC exempting degrees (which integrated an LLB, exemption from the LPC and an LLM) but these were four-year programmes integrating undergraduate and postgraduate level study.Footnote ³⁵ Institutions both set and mark the LPC assessments. To qualify through the SQE route candidates need to have a degree (in any subject), pass both stages of the SQE (SQE1 and SQE2) and undertake two years’ qualifying work experience (QWE).Footnote ³⁶ QWE can potentially include clinical legal education undertaken at university. The SQE examines foundational principles that might be covered in Foundation modules as well as material that might have traditionally been covered at LPC level, but all at the level expected of a competent newly qualified solicitor, as opposed to the level of day one trainee under the previous regime.Footnote ³⁷ This is a significant regulatory change, moving to a system where the study of law is not mandated at all at any level. Although the SRA does not prescribe any mandatory SQE course, it is generally acknowledged that most students will wish to undertake some kind of preparatory course to sit what is a challenging set of examinations with a relatively low pass rate.Footnote ³⁸ Whilst anticipating new postgraduate courses would proliferate, the SRA has suggested that undergraduate law degrees might help students prepare for the SQE.Footnote ³⁹

It is also worth noting that the SQE regime introduced solicitor apprenticeships, an entirely new route to qualification.Footnote ⁴⁰ Solicitor apprentices study alongside working and must pass both parts of the SQE to qualify. Law schools which offer solicitor apprentice programmes will need to align curricula to the SQE. Solicitor apprenticeships have generally been received positively and apprentice SQE pass rates are on average 26% higher than the overall pass rate.Footnote ⁴¹ However, there is a threat that government funding may be removed from solicitor apprenticeships, so their continued viability is in doubt.Footnote ⁴² The impact of the SQE on undergraduate LLBs is the key focus of this paper.

(c) The SQE’s predicted impact on undergraduate law degrees

In a number of respects, the SQE represents a return to a system more akin to that of the LSFs 30 years ago, which may be viewed as a somewhat regressive step. The at times vociferous criticism by the academy of the SQE is already well documented and, where relevant, will be discussed below as we explore the reasons for law school resistance to SQE curriculum change.Footnote ⁴³ One potential positive highlighted was that the reform might free universities from the constraints of a QLD and the need to teach the Foundations, allowing greater innovation in curriculum design.Footnote ⁴⁴ However, the BSB still requires study of the Foundations at the academic stage for barristersFootnote ⁴⁵ which is an obvious disincentive for abandonment of the Foundations entirely. Hammond-Sharlot posits that the nature of the isomorph has changed with the introduction of the SQE: ‘regulation has shifted from direct to indirect, but it is unlikely to stop affecting law schools in the same way… the isomorph we thought was coercive is actually normative in nature’.Footnote ⁴⁶ By this she means that universities will be reluctant to move away from the Foundations because they continue to feel pressure to ensure students have the foundational knowledge to enter into the legal profession, even if the SRA no longer mandates the study of the Foundations for solicitors and the majority of students do not enter the legal profession.

There was speculation when the SQE was introduced that deregulation could, counter intuitively, lead to greater vocationalism.Footnote ⁴⁷ Universities, and newer post-1992 universities in particular, might feel pressure to amend their undergraduate curricula to align with the SQE, particularly in relation to the SQE1. The SRA certainly envisaged that universities might align their curricula to the SQE specification.Footnote ⁴⁸ Given one of the stated aims of introducing the SQE was to drive down costs, in the authors’ view the SRA hoped universities would do so as this would save or reduce the extent students had to pay for separate preparatory courses.Footnote ⁴⁹ While academics speculated that universities might feel pressure to produce ‘SQE ready’ graduates and SQE-focused degrees, commentators highlighted that not all universities would feel the same level of pressure to adjust to the SQE.Footnote ⁵⁰ Bowyer suggested that higher ranked, traditionally research-intensive universities would ‘see themselves as untouchable’ and feel confident of continuing to attract applicants without kowtowing to the SQE.Footnote ⁵¹ Guth and Dutton speculated that: ‘Evidence so far suggests that the only institutions considering introducing SQE focused degrees are law schools based in new universities or those, usually lower ranked, schools which have traditionally had a vocational focus’.Footnote ⁵²

No one has undertaken a thorough methodological review of all LLB webpages following the introduction of the SQE (or a similar survey) in order to ascertain the practical impact of the SQE. Writing in 2022, Hammond-Sharlot suggests she ‘examined websites (particularly the SRA website)’ in addition to undertaking a traditional literature review, but offers no explanation of what websites were reviewed and does not present any detailed data. Gilbert did undertake a review of webpages in 2020 shortly before the SQE’s introduction which was summarised in a blog post noting that ‘It seems likely that websites will be updated in the coming months as more law schools unveil their plans for 2021’.Footnote ⁵³ Gilbert found: 61% of websites did not mention the SQE at all; 14% mentioned the SQE with varying levels of detail but without reference to the institution’s law courses; 17% stated the SQE would affect future course provision but included no detailed information; and 8% gave some detail about new course provision in response to the SQE.Footnote ⁵⁴ Gilbert concluded that at that point in time: ‘only a handful of institutions [we]re currently offering courses which aim to get students ready to actually sit the exam upon graduation’.Footnote ⁵⁵

The existing literature provides a good starting point when considering an explanation for why the Foundations have historically formed the compulsory core of most LLBs and what might happen following the SQE’s implementation. This paper offers new, updated and detailed data to help assess the impact of the SQE on undergraduate legal education to date. It also contends that the existing literature and theoretical analysis does not go far enough. It argues that all three types of isomorphism have played a role to date and that mimetic pressure is also important, alongside coercive and normative pressures. Also post-SQE implementation, it is submitted that institutional theory is not the only relevant theory. The data and analysis presented in the remainder of this paper therefore offers an expanded analysis of the relevance of institutional theory but also provides a new perspective by drawing on organisational strategic theory.

(a) Introduction to the data and general comments

The data gathered and analysed for this research has revealed four significant findings. The first is that law schools still overwhelmingly (80% approximately) require the mandatory study of all the Foundations even though this is no longer a regulatory requirement. Second, there has been an incremental shift towards vocationalism: the introduction of some MLaw SQE programmes, a handful of new SQE-focused three-year LLBs and about 20% of institutions have aligned their normal LLB with the SQE in some way (or at least claim this is the case). Third, an unexpected finding is that a significant proportion (approximately 31%) of websites contain factually inaccurate or confusing information about courses and/or routes to qualification. Fourth, a small minority of webpages may be overstating or misleading students as to the extent the LLB prepares them for the SQE. The data will be presented in detail and an analysis for the first two findings is offered by reference to institutional theory and organisational strategic theory.

Before discussing the main findings, it is important to outline the profiles of the different universities and their current offerings, as displayed in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1.

University profiles and course offerings.

We analysed websites from the total of 93 law schools in England and Wales, 40 of which were pre-1992 institutions and 53 were post-1992. We did not include private universities, such as the University of Law (ULaw) or BPP, as these were not included in the Guide. Of those included, 19 offered the LPC themselves, and ten offered it in collaboration with ULaw. Only seven of these institutions offered the Bar Practice Course and four had an MLaw solicitor programme (MLaw programmes are discussed further below). Individual institutions are not named in the discussion, but the type of institution (pre/post-1992) and which quartile of the Complete University Guide 2023 they fall into may be indicated (first being the top 25 ranked universities, second quartile the next best 25 ranked universities and so on). The remainder of this section presents and discusses the data from the content analysis, separated into themes which answer the three research questions.

Our review found that LLB webpages tend to follow a similar format. They are normally divided into a number of sections accessed by either scrolling down or clicking tabs. A typical website provides a general overview of the LLB before specific sections provide further detail on things like modules/teaching and careers. Some webpages are largely self-contained, while others have embedded links to other webpages. The level of detail relating to modules and careers varied, but most provided a reasonable amount of information on both.

(b) Unanticipated findings – ‘SQE omitters’ and confusing information

Figure 2 summarises the number of mentions of the terms ‘SQE’, ‘SQE1, ‘SQE2’ and ‘QWE’ on LLB webpages.

Figure 2.

Mentions of SQE Generally, SQE 1, SQE 2 and QWE across all institution webpages.

Table 1 below shows the total pre and post-1992 institution number of mentions of ‘SQE’ generally, ‘SQE 1’, ‘SQE 2’ and ‘QWE’ on LLB webpages.

Table 1.

Number of mentions of SQE from pre and post-1992 institutions

In addition to the table above, overall 37.5% (15) of pre-1992 institutions and 30.2% (16) of post-1992 institutions made no mention of the SQE in any way, ie a third of all webpages. This is perhaps still disappointingly high, but significantly lower than the 61% suggested by Gilbert’s 2020 research. In summary, a higher proportion of pre-1992 institutions did not mention the SQE at all compared to post-1992 institutions, although the difference is not stark. The data confirms that it is not just research-intensive universities which do not make any mention of the SQE on their webpages and may be labelled what we have termed ‘SQE omitters’. Given that newer universities might generally be more likely to place emphasis on the vocational attributes of their degrees, we were surprised that some post-1992 institutions contained no reference to the existence of the SQE or the recent changes to solicitor qualification. Particularly surprising was that four of the 16 post-1992 SQE omitters currently offer the LPC. It may be that these institutions include routes to qualification information on their postgraduate pages. Those who currently have the LPC may be waiting until the course is no longer running before adding SQE information. Finally, it may be that they are still deciding and/or designing an SQE offering before they put any information into the public domain. Our data alone does not confirm the reason(s) for the omissions.

Another unexpected finding was that webpages sometimes contained inaccurate or confusing information. For example, a module might be indicated to be compulsory in one section but optional elsewhere or indicate information was from a previous academic year. In terms of the SQE, institutions mainly provided general information or a brief mention that it existed, rather than a detailed outline of what it entailed. Few websites described all the SQE components in detail. More websites had details of SQE1, rather than SQE2 and QWE, but this was marginal. The focus on SQE1 makes sense, as the foundational knowledge it tests is more in line with what law degrees have traditionally covered, rather than the vocational elements of SQE2 and QWE. Of concern was that around a third of webpages contained factually incorrect or misleading information relating to routes into the profession/the SQE.

LLB webpages at the time of our study, aimed at prospective enrolments for academic year 2023/2024 students onwards, should not have indicated that their LLBs had QLD status for the purposes of solicitor qualification because the SRA’s transitional arrangements do not apply.Footnote ⁶¹ We acknowledge that a law school might refer to a ‘QLD’ as shorthand for covering the ‘Foundations’ required by the BSB and knowledge relevant for the SQE and that presented in this way the term is unproblematic. However, when it was used the term was generally not given in this context and sometimes accompanied by other misleading information. We found 31.2% (29) universities made statements suggesting their LLBs were still QLDs or were still validated by the SRA or that the Foundations were still mandatory despite this not now being the case for prospective students. Of these 29, nine were pre-1992 institutions and 20 were post-1992 institutions, with 13 of them offering the LPC either themselves or in collaboration with ULaw. Sometimes information seemed to generally be out of date (eg a statement that the SQE was due to commence in 2021 subject to LSB approval) but occasionally information was correct in one part of the webpage but not updated in another. At least one university demonstrated that it was itself confused about the new system, woefully conflating the LPC and SQE routes:

Other webpages incorrectly implied that the Foundations were mandatory for all LLBs or implied that the study of law was still a mandatory requirement for qualification as a solicitor. The SQE route to qualification incorporates greater flexibility than the more linear LPC route, which can be seen as a positive but also means there is scope for greater student confusion. This emphasises the importance of universities providing clear information and guidance to help students in their decision-making. We acknowledge the challenges of keeping webpages updated. However, this is not an excuse for including factually inaccurate information about the status of the LLB or the SQE that could mislead prospective students.

(c) To what extent, if at all, have universities moved away from the Foundations?

The Foundations are all still compulsory for the majority of undergraduate law students and even where all the Foundations are not compulsory, often only one or two subjects are optional. Of the 93 institutions, 79.6% (74) have kept all seven Foundations as compulsory, with only 19.4% (18) having some Foundations as optional, and one institution’s website made it unclear as to whether some were optional or not. There were an equal number of pre- and post-1992 universities making the Foundations optional. The most likely Foundations to be optional are EU law and equity and trusts, which is interesting as they were the last to be added and seem to be the first to be removed. Our review confirmed that often, but not always, the first year of an LLB degree consists entirely of core Foundations, the second year consists mainly of Foundations and the third year consists mainly of optional subjects.

Our finding that the vast majority of LLB students are still mandated to study Foundations and they still do so predominantly in the earlier years of their law degrees is consistent with the findings of the pre-SQE studies discussed earlier. Vaughan’s 2019 study found that only 14% of law schools made a QLD optional, our data 19.4%. The percentage is only now marginally higher and suggests a slow pace of change despite the introduction of the SQE. As noted above, the continued adherence to the ‘compulsory core’ is unsurprising given that the BSB still requires study of the Foundations for aspiring barristers and therefore continues to exert coercive pressure over LLBs in line with institutional theory. Many universities will still want to appear attractive to aspiring barristers, even if only a very small minority will go into the profession. There are also other reasons for retaining the Foundations.

There is pressure on law schools to remain offering LLBs which are attractive to an international students in a market where international student applications are falling far below recent levels.Footnote ⁶³ Indeed, there are growing concerns about the reliance of some UK universities on international tuition fee income, particularly in relation to Russell Group universities, and Law is the fourth most popular subject for overseas students.Footnote ⁶⁴ Prior to the SQE, law schools experienced coercive isomorphic pressure from both regulators. The regulators required a QLD to include the Foundations. International partners and international students would generally only be attracted to law degrees that met the regulator requirements. There is no longer coercive pressure from the SRA, but the BSB still requires study of the Foundations, which remains important to students in countries like Malaysia which allow students who have been called to the bar in England and Wales to practise at home. International partners are used to working with law schools that teach the Foundations and will still expect them to be covered, as if nothing has really changed in regulatory terms. In more practical terms, one core lecture delivered to an entire cohort is more cost-effective than 10 lectures delivered to a cohort divided unevenly into 10 optional module groups. As most lecturers will have studied the Foundations themselves, they tend to be easier to staff and less problematic to cover if lecturers leave, are sick or are on parental leave. The more options available, the greater the timetabling challenge.

We agree with Hammond-Sharlot’s assertion that coercive and normative isomorphism has led to a uniformity of undergraduate offerings. Post-SQE, coercive pressure is still exerted by the BSB, normative pressure comes from a variety of sources including international partner expectations. However, we would argue that all three types of isomorphism have played a role and that mimetic pressure is also a significant factor. What other institutions do is an important point of reference for law schools, particularly in a highly competitive domestic and international market. The fact that most universities have historically required study of the Foundations in itself has exerted pressure to not do anything different. As Aldrich highlights, ‘the major factors that organizations must take into account are other organizations’.Footnote ⁶⁵ Our data indicates that post-SQE the status quo has largely been maintained, as only a handful of LLBs have abandoned the compulsory study of the Foundations. Coercive, normative and mimetic pressures are still at play. The Foundations are also useful foundational knowledge for the SQE (we found that some universities highlight this, but certainly more could) so isomorphic pressure is to retain, rather than abandon, them. The SQE has also created a period of uncertainty in legal education. It is this period of uncertainty which is, according to DiMaggio and Powell, a catalyst for mimetic isomorphism: ‘when the environment creates symbolic uncertainty, organizations may model themselves on other organizations’.Footnote ⁶⁶ In this period of SQE uncertainty, law schools are reluctant to break away from the well-established Foundations model. However, organisational strategic theory may further explain the general reluctance to embrace change despite deregulation.

Our data establishes a general resistance to moving away from the safety net of the compulsory Foundations. Law schools are run by people. Decisions to make changes to curricula are normally made by those in management positions within law schools, ideally in consultation with the relevant teaching staff. Kotter and Schlesinger highlight that organisational change efforts ‘often run into some form of human resistance’.Footnote ⁶⁷ Therefore, it is worth considering what organisational strategic theory tells us in general about resistance to change. Kotter and Schlesinger suggest that the four most common reasons people resist change are: (1) parochial self-interest borne from a belief that they will lose something of value; (2) misunderstanding and lack of trust; (3) different cost/benefit assessment of the change (to those that wish to make the change); (4) low tolerance for change because they fear they will not be able to develop the new skills and behaviour that will be required of them.Footnote ⁶⁸ In relation to adherence to the Foundations, the most relevant factor seems to be cost/benefit assessment. It is administratively and financially more efficient for core Foundation modules to make up the most significant proportion of an LLB. Any curriculum change requires additional work. At a minimum, work is required for new modules to pass through university procedures to change module and programme specifications and related information on electronic learning platforms and webpages. Management and lecturers may be of the view that the time and effort ‘costs’ outweigh the benefits, or demand from students, for greater optionality. Law lecturers will have normally themselves studied the Foundations, reinforcing normative conditions. In relation to the Foundations, isomorphic pressures are combining with resistance to change to maintain the status quo. The position is more complex in relation to other changes to curricula in light of the SQE though, as discussed further below.

(d) To what extent, if at all, have universities aligned their undergraduate curricula to the SQE?

The data clearly confirms that the SQE, whilst not mandating changes at undergraduate level, has led to the introduction of a few entirely new three-year ‘SQE-focused LLBs’ and some changes to standard (ie non-SQE focused) LLBs. The handful of SRA regulated MLaw LPC exempting programmes have also been replaced by a handful of (non-SRA regulated) MLaw SQE programmes. While noteworthy, the replacement of MLaw exempting programmes with MLaw SQE programmes is perhaps less novel than the emergence of SQE-focused LLBs. Where there was alignment of standard LLBs, it was more likely to be a post-1992 institution, but there were pre-1992 institutions which had aligned their degree to the SQE to some extent, as discussed further below.

Information about MLaw SQE programmes and SQE-focused LLBs is presented separately from the standard LLB findings to avoid skewing the standard LLB data. The SQE-focused LLBs (and MLaw SQEs) are specifically noted to be designed with the SQE in mind: for example, one SQE-focused LLB states it is ‘designed around the outcomes you’ll need to study for the [SQE]’Footnote ⁶⁹ and another that students will be ‘uniquely prepared to sit the SQE1 exams’.Footnote ⁷⁰ SQE-focused LLBs are a significant new development and more of these types of programme may follow, given that they can be set up without SRA approval. Unsurprisingly we judged these programmes and the MLaw SQE programmes to all have significant or extensive alignment to the SQE.

When exploring the alignment of LLBs to the SQE, we measured it using a scale. This is as illustrated in Figure 3 below, which presents the data in relation to standard LLBs.

Figure 3.

Alignment of standard LLB Programmes to the SQE.

Around 80% of institutions (74) indicated no alignment to the SQE, 87% of pre-1992 institutions (35) and 73.6% of post-1992 institutions (39). This means that 13% of pre-1992 institutions (5) and 26.4% (14) post-1992 institutions demonstrated some form of alignment.

Eight institutions evidenced limited alignment, such as mentioning the SQE in reference to one or two module descriptors or having a practical legal skills module which was stated to help prepare for SQE2. Four institutions were categorised as having moderate alignment, eg having SQE-focused modules that students can choose or assessments being multiple choice to help with the SQE. Seven had significant alignment, such as an optional year three pathway which aligns to some SQE topics and having non-foundational modules which are also examined as part of SQE 1. No LLBs were categorised as having extensive alignment, meaning the curriculum as a whole has been aligned to the SQE, which is perhaps unsurprising as, if so, they would likely have been rebranded as SQE/practice-focused programmes. Some universities could more clearly articulate how modules have been aligned to the SQE, with some only vaguely mentioning that they are ‘good preparation’ for the SQE.

Institutions which currently offer the LPC had only a slightly higher percentage of alignment to the SQE than those which do not at around 30% (compared to 20% across the general population). 70% (21) of the institutions which offer the LPC (including in collaboration with ULaw) were deemed to have zero alignment to the SQE, with four LPC providers with some alignment and four with significant alignment. Therefore, institutions offering the LPC have perhaps been slower to align undergraduate curricula to the SQE than might have been expected given they are more likely to employ former practitioners and be well placed to maintain or even extend their vocational offering. Note that we are aware that some institutions which previously offered the LPC had stopped doing so at the time we collected our data, no doubt as a result of the SQE. This makes analysis of the overall trend more difficult. Interestingly, of the 19 institutions which have some form of alignment to the SQE, 17 (89.5%) have kept the Foundations compulsory. It makes sense that a high percentage of institutions which have some form of alignment to the SQE have retained compulsory study of the Foundations, given they cover foundational SQE knowledge.

At postgraduate level a number of universities have decided to partner with private providers such as Barbri or ULaw in relation to the SQE.Footnote ⁷¹ Arrangements vary from progression agreements (discounted fees and guaranteed places on the private provider’s SQE courses upon graduation) to more extensive arrangements whereby the university uses the private provider’s teaching materials under licence or the whole programme is delivered by the private provider. Because we did not think partnering of this kind was common at undergraduate level at the time of our research, we did not set out specifically to gather data on it. However, we did make notes as and when LLB webpages mentioned private providers. Predominantly, the mentions were to highlight the postgraduate arrangements outlined above. One university did state that students would have access to a private provider’s SQE materials in their final yearFootnote ⁷² and another mentioned a private provider ‘support package’ being available but it was not clear what this entailed.Footnote ⁷³ The market may have moved on somewhat since we collected our data and there certainly seems scope for partnering at undergraduate level in the final year of MLaw programmes. On contacting them for comment, a contact at Barbri told us that:

If a university has to ‘buy in’ SQE materials and/or teaching this will, of course, have an impact on the financial viability of the course and there is the undergraduate fee cap to bear in mind. There is therefore likely greater scope for scale and profit at postgraduate level, not least because of the possibilities presented by the international student market.

Institutional theory and organisational strategic theory can explain why the majority of institutions have resisted alignment, whilst a fifth of institutions have aligned their LLB provision in some way. As with the Foundations, there will also be forceful resistance to change at play within law schools, particularly in older institutions where there is likely to be low tolerance for change because of a fear academics will not be able to develop the new skills and behaviour required. As one pre-1992 respondent to the SQE consultation put it:

This falls into Kotter and Schlesinger’s fourth reason for resistance: low tolerance for change because of a fear they will not be able to develop the new skills and behaviour that will be required of them. Partnering with private providers provides a way of entering the SQE market without radically changing a law school’s staff base or forcing existing staff to upskill, but it comes at a financial cost.

Arguably Kotter and Schlesinger’s second reason for resistance is also a very important factor in relation to the SQE: misunderstanding and lack of trust. At the consultation stage, legal academia as a whole remained generally unconvinced by either the SRA’s proposals or its reasons for reform. The SQE might be described as a solution in search of a problem. The impetus for change does not appear to have come from the profession itself and while the SRA was keen to stress the importance of consumer protection, it acknowledged it was ‘difficult to find a link between consumer detriment and inadequate training’.Footnote ⁷⁶ The SQE consultation responses clearly evidence the resistance of law academics to the (then) proposed new format of centralised assessment: 82% of academic responses strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement that the proposed SQE was a robust and effective measure of competence and 86% of academic responses strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement that the SQE was a suitable test of the requirements needed to become a solicitor.Footnote ⁷⁷ One of the SRA’s justifications for the SQE was that it would increase competition, drive down cost and potentially ‘remove barriers’, thereby helping to address equality, diversity and inclusion in the profession.Footnote ⁷⁸ This claim was met with scepticism from Guth and Dutton who countered that in fact the SQE would ‘perpetuate patterns of subordination and risk further silencing already underrepresented social groups’.Footnote ⁷⁹

That is not to say resistance to change can never be surmounted. Kotter and Schlesinger’s cost benefit model of resistance to change posits that, where there is evidence of resistance to a particular change, this can be accommodated by ‘education and communication’, ‘participation and involvement’ and particularly ‘negotiation and agreement’.Footnote ⁸⁰ The issue is that, despite the considerable strength of objection, the model of the SQE proposed by the SRA was broadly introduced in any event, demonstrating the failure by the SRA to break down resistance to change through meaningful communication, participation and involvement or negotiation and agreement. Nor has the picture that has emerged post-SQE implementation done anything to assuage the academy’s initial mistrust of the SQE. The pass rates, particularly for SQE1, vary by assessment but were recently as low as 44%.Footnote ⁸¹ There is a troubling difference in performance between different ethnic groups.Footnote ⁸² While there are a greater range of preparatory courses in the market, it is highly questionable that the SQE has driven down costs. Once the costs of exams and preparatory courses are combined together with any travel and accommodation expenses, the SQE has the potential to be more expensive than the LPC – particularly as candidates must pay to resit failed assessments, whereas resits were normally included in the overall LPC fee. These are not the only criticisms, as the Gazette recently highlighted:

Law academics appear to have felt that they were not allowed to meaningfully participate in the SQE decision-making process and that their legitimate concerns were ignored. As Vaughan summarises, ‘In the nicest possible way, the SRA does not care about the members of the legal academy. They are not part of its regulatory remit as framed by the Legal Services Act 2007. They are simply irrelevant (in regulatory terms)’. Footnote ⁸⁴

All institutions in the data set are subject to the same environmental conditions but, as discussed above, not all feel the same level of pressure to adjust to the SQE. Earlier it was discussed how coercive, normative and mimetic pressures have led to the retention of the compulsory Foundations. In relation to alignment of curricula to the SQE, the pressure is to adjust LLB delivery to be able to market degrees as SQE preparation. In the majority of universities, resistance to change has likely overridden isomorphic pressures, at least to date, resulting in an absence of alignment of curricula to the SQE. In relation to those that have some form of alignment, it is likely that isomorphic pressures have outweighed resistance to change. In newer universities, with more vocationally qualified staff, resistance to change may have generally also been lower and pressure to attract students higher than in older universities. Of course environmental conditions change over time and have evolved somewhat since the introduction of the SQE. The recent drop in international student numbers is no doubt exerting additional competitive pressure on some institutions that have traditionally been relatively confident in attracting students. There is still coercive pressure following the regulatory change albeit now indirect in relation to the SRA, but we believe the primary reason that 20% of law schools have aligned their curricula more closely with the SQE is out of fear that failing to do so will give their competitors an edge in the market. This is mimetic isomorphism where organisations imitate each other’s practices, or what they believe their competitor may do, on the assumed basis that doing so will help to ensure their long-term organisational survival.

The SQE has created a period of uncertainty which, according to DiMaggio and Powell, is a powerful catalyst for mimetic isomorphism. Institutions which have aligned in some way are likely to be those institutions feeling isomorphic pressure most intensely, facing stiff competition for student recruitment. The fact that a higher percentage of post-1992 institutions have aligned fits with Bowyer’s argument that higher ranked, traditionally research-intensive universities would be more confident of attracting students without ‘kowtowing’ to the SQE. However, Guth and Dutton’s assertion that the only institutions considering SQE-focused degrees are post-1992 or those with a traditionally vocational focus, is not necessarily true as of 2023, with some evidence that pre-1992 institutions are also creating or aligning LLBs to the SQE. This a trend which may continue as Russell Group and other older institutions respond to lower international student numbers. We argue that the most powerful influence on a law school is likely to be what its direct competitors are doing, or what it thinks they are likely to do. If competitors are likely to align, the institution is more likely to align; if competitors are unlikely to align, the institution is likely to do the same.

As noted earlier, undergraduate and vocational study of law remained largely distinct under the LPC system. The notable exception was the handful of SRA-approved MLaw LPC exempting programmes but these were four-year programmes integrating undergraduate and postgraduate level study. Post-SQE, the handful of MLaw exempting programmes have been replaced with a handful of MLaw SQE programmes. A more significant development is the emergence of three-year SQE-focused LLBs and SQE ‘pathways’ within normal LLBs. We acknowledge that there will likely be some ‘SQE washing’ within the data presented, ie law schools emphasising SQE-compatible elements of existing LLBs without making substantive changes to content. However, the SQE has clearly resulted in some significant developments as evidenced by these new programmes and pathways. The hypothesis Waters put forward of the SQE leading to greater vocationalismFootnote ⁸⁵ appears at least partially realised from our data with potential for greater alignment as time goes on. Moreover, a perhaps surprising finding of our data is that it is clear that not all pre-1992 law schools see themselves as ‘untouchable’, as claimed by Bowyer, and some are using the SQE to attract applicants. The potential scope for a shift towards vocationalism in undergraduate legal education is perhaps greater than initially appreciated.

(e) To what extent do universities now claim their undergraduate law degrees prepare students for the SQE?

Whilst the terms ‘SQE ready’ and SQE focused’ were frequently mentioned in the period leading to the SQE’s introduction, this terminology is not generally used on LLB webpages.

MLaw SQEs and SQE-specific LLBs normally claimed to partially prepare students for aspects of the SQE, or to claim that graduates will be fully prepared to sit SQE1. None claimed to prepare graduates for both of the centrally assessed elements of the SQE (ie SQE1 and SQE2). In terms of standard LLBs, as shown by Figure 4 below, only one law school is claiming that its (non SQE-specific) degree prepares graduates for all the SQE (ie SQE1 and SQE2).Footnote ⁸⁶ However, a minority indicate that their standard LLB will partially prepare students for aspects of the SQE, and a number go as far as to claim that graduates will be fully prepared to sit SQE1. Some go no further than noting that the Foundations will be useful foundational knowledge for the SQE.

Figure 4.

The Level of Claims of Preparedness for the Standard LLB to the SQE.

We further explored the claims institutions made of how much their standard LLB programme will prepare graduates for the SQE.

Of those which made no explicit claims as to preparedness for the SQE, 52% (27) were pre-1992 and 48% (25) were post-1992 institutions. This means 31.7% (13) of pre-1992 and 68.3% (28) of post-1992 institutions claimed some level of preparedness for the SQE. Therefore, the data suggests a higher proportion of post-1992 institutions claim their degree will prepare students for the SQE than pre-1992 institutions, but many post-1992s do not.

There was sometimes a disconnect between the level of programme and module alignment indicated on an LLB webpage and statements made in relation to how far the programme would prepare the student for the SQE. For example, one institution evidenced no indication of SQE curriculum alignment but went as far as to state: ‘Studying the LLB Law Degree means you will gain the knowledge and skills required to successfully complete the vocational stage of legal education, stages one and two of the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE)’.Footnote ⁸⁷ Another law school webpage which omitted any evidence of alignment to the SQE stated: ‘We’ve designed our degree to ensure you’re prepared for the updated Solicitors Qualifying Exam’.Footnote ⁸⁸ Another institution indicates that the degree will fully prepare students for SQE1, but Business Law and Practice (which is part of the SQE syllabus) does not even appear to be an option on the programme.Footnote ⁸⁹ There are various other examples.

We acknowledge that not all relevant information about a programme is necessarily included on an LLB webpage and that there may be more alignment than initially indicated, but cramming comprehensive coverage of all the SQE syllabus into three-year LLB programmes is unlikely to be realistic unless extensive changes are made and optional modules are removed. While the majority of universities are understandably cautious in the statements they make and avoid any guarantee of SQE ‘success’, a worst-case interpretation of the data is that a minority of universities have not grasped the breadth of the SQE syllabus and may be misleading students as to the level of preparedness they can realistically expect on completion of the degree. Further research might usefully be conducted in relation to this through the lens of consumer protection law.