Hey Guest, Have an interview coming up? We’ve opened new mock interview slots this week. Book here

TCLA Premium: Now half price (£30/month). Applications, interviews, commercial awareness + 700+ examples.
Join →

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="average_jo123" data-source="post: 215894" data-attributes="member: 15838"><h3>SQE2 results reflection</h3>Hope everybody else's results day went well. I fortunately did pass and I have just started my TC now. Thought I'd share a final few reflections on the marks I ended up receiving, hopefully this may be helpful for anyone waiting for SQE2 results or if you are about to sit SQE2 soon. Basically just wanted to share that what you expect may at times be true but other times could be completely different, so you shouldn't necessarily be too harsh on yourself.<h4>Overall reflections</h4>I got 73% and scored in Quintile 2 (scaled score 365). First of all I feel extremely grateful to even have passed, but I think I also low key anticipated scoring in the 71% region so my actual results wasn't too far off. I was just slightly more surprised at how hard it would have been to get Q1! So if you scored Q1 then you've done very very well. In my cohort there was a mixture of people scoring between Q1 Q2 and Q3, from the looks of it definitely didn't look like a case of majority of people scoring Q1 like it was a piece of cake. On reflection though I kind of was prepared for my score, and I think on the whole I didn't work quite as hard as I did for SQE1 probably cause I was much more burnt out by that point, so I can understand why I scored slightly lower. Not moaning at all though, I know I am very lucky that I even passed, regardless of which quintile I was in.Looking at my mark breakdown what I personally gather was I feel like I was marked really harshly. I remember coming away from the exam knowing which mistakes I made law and skill wise and I thought the mistakes I made would maybe be a difference between a 5 and a 4 or the difference between a 4 and a 3 but bruh turns out they are much harsher. For the ones I felt like I probably could get away with a 3 or 4 I ended up only with 1 or 2. And for the ones I thought I deserved a 5 I ended up only with a 4. In all fairness it might also be because I didn't exactly examine the marking criteria in great detail before I made these predictions. ULaw did remind us to continuously objectively reflect on whether we were actually hitting all the points in the marking criteria but lol I always just skip that predict my own scores purely based on vibes. So if you want to make more educated guesses on how you will be marked it might be worth spending a bit more time figuring out how you would score yourself objectively say on a mock you have done based on the marking criteria, and practise until you get to a level which you are comfortable with the score you would get. Better to be a bit harsher on yourself when you are marking yourself before the exam rather than having maybe too much false hope like I did — probably safer to underpromise and overdeliver when it comes to marking yourself before the exam and actually getting your scores back after the exam.But overall in terms of whether my actual marks met my expectations is a bit of a mixed bag (as you will see for each station below). Some I performed exactly to my expectations while some others caught me by surprise. At some points it does feel a bit random and subjective and I don't really know what goes through the assessor's head when they decide to give me say, a 3 instead of a 4 or vice versa. The only reason I didn't pay much attention to the marking criteria prior to the exam was I thought surely the assessors will to some extent mark based on vibes because ultimately idk how one can truly explain with precision and pure logic what is the difference between and answer script which is e.g. a:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Marginal pass: on balance, just meets the competency requirements of the assessment; vs an answer script which is a...</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Marginal fail: on balance, just fails to meet the competency requirements of the assessment</li> </ul>... and what exactly would have tipped the scale for that answer script to and from one or the other threshold...? Idk what exactly even goes into this balancing exercise. I just thought it all felt to opaque and so didn't bother too much with the fine print of the marking criteria. But you can decide for yourself whether it would be beneficial for you to examine it and integrate it into your SQE2 revision. I just dk how I feel about how smth so subjective can have so much bearing on each candidate's performance for this exam and the knock-on effect this would have on their entire life. I do hope that the SRA can find a way to make marking more transparent to give candidates better peace of mind. <h4>Advocacy</h4>Marks were as expected. I walked out of criminal advocacy thinking I smashed it and turns out I did score 4s and 5s across both law and skill. DR advocacy I remember fumbling a lot more and I was quite disorganised, which also reflected accordingly in my marks — scored mostly 4s and two 3s on skill and law, probably cause I got lost in my notes and maybe missed out a key factual point which relates to my argument or smth idk.<h4>CMA</h4>For business and crim same point as overall reflections above, I expected at least 4s but ended up with mostly 3s. For property I somehow scored a 1 in law even though I don't recall getting the law that wrong lol — I guess I did get a lot of it wrong but still haven't realised what I've got wrong to this day. Coming out of property CMA I did check my materials and figured I at least got 70 to 80% of the law right, so definitely wasn't expecting it to be a 1. So might be because I completely misinterpreted the question or missed a key point of analysis I suppose. I think this does goes to show that whatever you remember about the question coming out from the exam is limited to only what you managed to remember in that one hour, not the actual question itself and your answer script in entirety. So even if you are relatively confident about getting the law right, I guess you can never be 100% sure. Sorry this doesn't sound particularly encouraging, but note this same thing may also work in your favour; you may only remember what you got wrong, but there may also be a lot that you got right that you don't remember. It's all a bit unpredictable imo.<h4>Legal drafting</h4>Marks were as expected. Business drafting I thought I got a solid 90% of the law right and sure enough scored 4 and 5, but I did come away thinking I was too waffly and could have drafted it skills wise 10x better in retrospect and sure enough got a 3 for skills. Crim drafting got 5s for skill which was unexpected - I came out from crim drafting thinking surely it was too waffly and read really weird but apparently not, unexpectedly got a 2 for law, which was weird because I was pretty certain I got most of the law right. I guess I'm just not a very good judge of whether I actually know the law lol. Property drafting was as expected — I came out thinking I was shaky on the law and as expected, got 2s and 3s.<h4>Legal research</h4>I thought I was marked quite harshly for business research lol. I knew I had gotten one part of the law wrong and fully expected for that to take me from a 5 to a 3 or smth but I ended up with a 1. Wills I came out of relatively confident and sure enough got 4s and 5s across the board. DR research I was relatively certain I got the law mostly right but only got 3s. Again, I think I am just a very bad judge of whether I actually know the law.<h4>Legal writing </h4>Same as above, I think I'm just really bad at judging how much FLK I actually know and know how to apply lol. For business I was 90% confident upon checking my answers after the exam that my law was correct but ended up with a 3 and a 5; also expected more for skills cause I don't think I even wrote that badly but I guess the assessors are looking for smth else. DR I thought I was shaky on law but ended up with 4s across the board, which I am happy with. Wills I thought I was shaky on the law but turns out I did know the law cause I have a 5 and a 4. Idk I just feel like you can come out of the exam feeling a certain way about how you have potentially scored for skill or law yet it can completely take you by surprise still. I guess it can only be because how I feel is based on only the elements of the question and my answer that I can remember in that short space of time, yet there may be a tonne of other details I completely have not considered which will be considered by the assessors.<h4>Interview and attendance note</h4>Skills marks on the interview itself I felt they were quite generous for both wills and property. I don't recall conducting the interview itself being particularly challenging though, and the clients I got were relatively cooperative (though idk how much is down to how the actors were told to act or whether it is down to how I approached the interview). I remember for my wills interview, contrary to ULaw's advice that before concluding the whole interview, you should always summarise the client's next steps so they feel confident about what exactly they need to do next. On the day I panicked and completely forgot to summarise and I had A LOT of time leftover. I had a meltdown about this thinking I will be massively marked down for this minor mistake, but turns out I wasn't. I guess the client must have thought overall my instructions were clear enough still, as I did tell her clearly what her next steps should be for each issue she raised, but I simply forgot to sum it all up towards the end.Marks for attendance note for wills was as expected. I did ruminate on this after the exam thinking ah shit I missed a lot of legal points and turns out I was right - scored only 2s for law. Surprisingly scored only 3s for skills on the attendance note though, can't really figure out why this is the case — I thought the way I wrote skills wise wasn't that bad so idk what's the rationale for giving me 3s.Marks for attendance note for property was also as expected. I thought certain parts of law might have been shaky and sure enough that was reflected by a 2. Though for some reason I scored 4s for skills - again I have no idea how I have managed this as I feel I took completely the same approach as I did for wills yet one gave me 4s vs the other gave me 3s. There must be smth else that the assessors were looking for that I don't know of, or maybe there truly is some element of marking by vibes I have no clue.</blockquote>

Verification: Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Top Bottom

Search

Search

Reply to thread