Which training providers are doing the best out of the SQE?

Often, with the SQE, we are talking about results and how firms react to those results. What we don’t talk about so often is who is providing the training for the next generation of legal professionals.  

There are a number of different ways to approach the Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE), such as self-training or using online courses to prepare for the exams. However, one of the most common ways to train for the exam is through a preparatory course delivered alongside the training contract the student is attached to. For the most part, this is organised through the firm, so those who provide the teaching can find it a lucrative business.  

Generally, a firm will choose a single training provider to supply this training. However, we’ve recently seen some changes of hands for these training providers, with law firms choosing to go elsewhere for their training needs. Global law firm Reed Smith recently changed its training provider from a shared deal with Barbri and the College of Legal Practice to just using the CLP exclusively. These relative newcomers to the legal education market priced out the traditional provider, BPP University Law School, four years ago in a joint deal, but since then, the legal market has seen the old LPC being phased out and the new SQE being brought in. However, the BPP still command a considerable majority of the legal marketplace, closely followed by another old hand, ULaw. Both retained or acquired some huge name law firms – Freshfields, Slaughter and May, and Linklaters for BPP; Clifford Chance, Ashurst, and Trowers & Hamlins for ULaw.  

For all these training providers, being associated with big-name players, whether Silver Circle or Legal 500, helps them attract self-funded students. As such, the breakthrough of two relatively new players in the game, the CLP and Barbri, promises to increase competition for these training providers. These newer providers are also using technology to keep costs down and appear to be a more attractive proposition to firms. While ULaw is collaborating with universities to provide their courses in person, Barbri is exclusively an online-only teaching provider, meaning their price is lower than that of their traditional competitors. The CLP also offers a mix of in-person or remote teaching options but charges fees similar to Barbri. Both ULaw and BPP do offer teaching options, but, so far, they don’t seem as competitive regarding fees. However, we don’t have any data yet to show just how well those whom these new providers train are doing. The SRA has pledged to publish data breaking down how successful these providers are when it comes to students passing the exams but hasn’t done so yet. Therefore, it is hard to tell which providers are actually providing the best value for money – the longstanding providers with higher fees but a proven track record, or the newer ones with lower fees but, as of yet, an unclear track record.

Whether more firms decide to try newer training providers remains to be seen. And, when it comes to the SQE, value for money is paramount, with huge costs being associated just with the entry alone. So, when we get the promised ‘league table’ of results, it may open up the field even wider for more competition, or it may reveal that those more experienced in teaching are getting the results the first time around.