Dr Morag Duffin of the University of Law looks into awarding gaps and differential outcomes between different groups undertaking the SQE.

Since the introduction of the Single Qualifying Exam (SQE) in 2021, there has been a lot of noise about the assessment and its function as the main entry point into the legal profession as a solicitor. A key area that this noise has focused on is whether the assessment is meeting one of its key objectives which is to promote a diverse profession.

The publication of SQE results by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) by demographic groups has suggested, however, that this may not be the case. Unfortunately, the SQE is not alone as an assessment with different pass rates by demographic group, and aspiring lawyers from diverse backgrounds face barriers throughout their education (Degree attainment: Black, Asian and minority ethnic students and Annual Report on Bar Training January 2025).

Awarding gaps and differential outcomes

The legal education sector (like the wider education sector) is faced with disparities in outcomes for different demographic groups. These are referred to in different ways; within higher education at undergraduate Law level, we look at awarding gaps, i.e. the difference in the proportion of "good" degrees (defined as a first-class or 2:1) awarded to different demographic groups.

Prospective lawyers from certain backgrounds are less likely to gain entry to the profession at numerous stages in their legal education.

In professional legal assessments, the SRA and Bar Standards Board (BSB) look at differential outcomes, the difference in the proportion of students passing the assessments by demographic group.

Essentially what we are looking at is the same thing: prospective lawyers from certain backgrounds are less likely to gain entry to the profession at numerous stages in their legal education. The specific backgrounds we are talking about here, as evidenced in the data, are students from minoritised ethnic groups.

Underlying causes

The Office for Students, SRA and BSB have all carried out research into understanding these gaps. A range of potential causes have been identified, from social economic background to prior education outcomes, to fitting in, support and access to legal work experience.

Discrimination and institutional and professional culture have also been identified as potential causes, as well as questions around the inclusivity of curricula and/or assessment. The crux of it is that this inequality in outcomes is a “Wicked Problem”, i.e. one that is neither simply nor completely resolvable.

Why is this important?

As a diversity and inclusion professional, I am in no doubt as to why this is important, but often the discussion around awarding gaps and differential outcomes can be subsumed by the argument around individual merit. The goal is a legal sector that is representative of the population and can therefore best serve it, and that those that work within the sector are the best for the job.

The issue is that our legal education system and wider society place additional barriers in front of certain students that prevent them from being awarded at the level of their peers. This is why in higher education it is referred to as an “awarding gap” not an “attainment gap”.

Our legal education system and wider society place additional barriers in front of certain students that prevent them from being awarded at the level of their peers.

It’s not that Black students inherently can’t be lawyers, it’s that there are institutional and systemic barriers that are preventing Black students from being awarded at the same rate as their White peers. The issue is that this disadvantage is cumulative, from the time some students enter the education system they are faced by these barriers at every stage, though compulsory education, into higher education and then professional education.

The achievement of a student who has made it all the way through and has passed the SQE or the Bar Exams, for instance, is substantial.

Potential solutions

We need to try to identify what these institutional and systemic barriers within legal education are, and make change.

How do we do that? That’s one big question. Another is how we get the support to make the needed change.

Education providers need to listen to our students themselves, listen to what they say about making institutional change, and action what they sat even when it is challenging, such as increasing diversity of faculty (challenging when recruiting from the profession) or addressing discrimination and creating inclusive learning environments.

Alongside that, however, we should not be relying on our students to help us address these barriers and we should be educating ourselves and instigating the change ourselves irrespective of the challenge or cost.

Firms need to consider their recruitment: is it just ticking the diversity box or does it really appreciate and incorporate the existence of these awarding gaps?

Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (the SRA and BSB) need to continue but also increase their efforts to understand how their assessment methodology and entry routes may create barriers for certain groups of students, by working closely with legal education providers.

They also need to consider and review aspects of and behaviours within the profession, reviewing historical and/or outdated traditions and expectations which are not fit for a diverse and inclusive profession.

Finally, firms need to consider their recruitment: is it just ticking the diversity box or does it really appreciate and incorporate the existence of these awarding gaps? As firms know that there are awarding gaps at undergraduate level for students for minoritised ethnicities, should they be considering incorporating this into their contextual recruitment like universities do?

Discounting an Asian student who has achieved a 2.2 by sticking to a strict 2.1 requirement may well mean missing out on an excellent recruit.

Only by a concerted effort of all these groups can we make progress in addressing inequitable outcomes to be able to achieve the goal of a diverse and representative legal profession.

Visit

The University of Law

Connect with Dr Morag Duffin via LinkedIn