I have now had a read of @LSB_EngandWal decision. It was expected @sra_solicitors would get the nod, but I imagine they are fairly pleased. Main issues of ongoing concern seem to be: differential performance of BAME candidates, which the LSB seem to regard... https://twitter.com/lawvaughan/status/1321429961182511105">https://twitter.com/lawvaugha...

...as normal, and at least subject to ongoing investigation. Issue 2 seemed to be a concern that unpaid internships might grow as a means to hitting qualifying work experience and that this would be bad for EDI. SRA basically saying they’ll keep an eye on it. 2/

Unregulated training providers. This feels like one they were a bit more worried about as the SRA want to rely on publishing pass rates as holding providers feet to the fire. This will take time and LSB acknowledge will be a limited proxy for quality (it was ever thus). 3/

They seem as or more worried by new unregulated providers starting out and then going bust and leaving students high and dry. Again SRA basically saying they’ll keep an eye on it. 4/

They seem to be the main concerns that exercised the LSB. Interestingly they seem dubious that the SQE will improve diversity, at least the cost arguments, even though they accept that cost likely to be reduced. 5/

This seemed to be because firms might be less inclined to fund, and government funding was not available for SQE, if I’ve understood that. Earn as you learn might mitigate that.

Unsurprisingly they don’t take points on MCTs being poor. They run with the argument that MCTs can test higher skills not the argument that the SRA tests do test higher skills well. This is crucial. More or less the entire entry process rests on the quality of the test. /ends