There’s an interesting story on Legal Cheek about the SQE. Existing evidence, informed readers will recall, suggests there may be an EDI problem with the assessment. They have been warned about this periodically, it is (I believe, and stand to be corrected) a known problem with some of the medical equivalents, and their assessment of SQE1 underlined the problems. Now some news about the evaluation of SQE2 has emerged. Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:
Kaplan, the organisation appointed to assess the SQE, found that “univariate” analysis (performance by individual candidate variables) shows a significant performance difference between white and BAME candidates compared with “multivariate” analysis (which seeks to identify the best true predictors of candidate scores). However, both analyses should be viewed with caution due to overlapping candidate variables and the small numbers in the different groups, Brannan stressed.
The first sentence is difficult to understand. It might be saying multivariate analysis suggests that factors other than ethnicity explain performance on SQE2. It’s the second sentence that is important. It is an admission that the evaluation of SQE2 is underpowered; that is it was run with insufficient numbers to test the question Julie is dealing with here. Unless one of the aims of the pilot was not to look at BAME differences, then this bit of the pilot is (I will allow you to pick the single best answer):
a) going to happen anyway because, well because
c) the Netherlands deserved to win
d) not fit for purpose.