STANDARDS

BOARD
REGULATING BARRI STE RS

Application to the Legal Services Board under part 3 of schedule 4

to the Legal Services Act 2007 to withdraw the Bar Course Aptitude
Test as an entry requirement for the vocational component of Bar
training

For information relating to this application, please contact:

Christopher Young
Policy Manager – Strategy and Policy
cyoung@barstandardsboard.org.uk

10 June 2022
Overview
1. The Bar Standards Board (BSB) is applying to alter its regulatory arrangements for
those seeking to qualify as a barrister by removing the requirement to take, and pass,
the Bar Course Aptitude Test (BCAT) as a condition of entry to the vocational
component of Bar training.
2. The BCAT is a prerequisite for all students who have completed the academic
component of Bar training – an undergraduate law degree, or a non-law degree and
Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) – and intend to study on the vocational component of
training. It is available for students to sit year-round, apart from a brief closure period for
maintenance. The requirement applies universally and those who do not achieve a
passing score cannot enrol on a vocational component Bar training course.
3. The BCAT was introduced in 2013 to ensure that only those with the aptitude for Bar
training were allowed to enrol on a vocational course. It is a computerised 55-minute
test which consists of 60 multiple choice questions. It is based on a Watson-Glaser
psychometric test, designed to assess critical thinking and understanding of arguments
– identifying different perspectives and the ability to distinguish facts from opinions and
assumptions. It does not test legal knowledge or English language proficiency. The
BCAT is delivered by Pearson VUE and costs £150 in the UK and £170 for students
sitting the test abroad.
4. When the BCAT was introduced, the BSB committed to a review of its effectiveness,
which has now been completed and a decision has been taken by the BSB Board that
the BCAT be withdrawn.
5. To give effect to the alteration sought, this application includes consequential alterations
to the BSB’s Authorisation Framework, the Curriculum and Assessment Strategy and
the Bar Qualification Manual, all of which underpin the BSB’s regulatory arrangements
for qualification as a barrister.
Background to the Future Bar Training (FBT) reforms
6. The aim of the FBT reforms, launched in 2014, was to make training for the Bar more
accessible, more affordable and more flexible while maintaining high standards. The
FBT reforms included:

• the introduction of the Professional Statement, which sets the standards of entry
to the profession;
• the introduction of the Authorisation Framework (and associated guidance) and
reforms to the way that training organisations (Authorised Education and
Training Organisations “AETOs”) for both the vocational and work-based
learning components are authorised and supervised;
• the previous single training pathway was replaced with a suite of four approved
pathway 1s. The way the outcomes of Bar training are assessed through both the
centralised and provider assessments was reviewed. Changes were made to
better align the assessments with meeting the threshold standards as defined in
the Professional Statement;
• other reforms to the pupillage/work-based learning component include greater
flexibility in how training is delivered, and the setting and length of training
programmes;

1 See Authorisation Framework (11.2 – Vocational Component), pages 7-11.

2
 • pupil supervisor training outcomes are now specified, and supervisors are
required to refresh training after 5 years (or 3 years if they have not supervised a
pupil in the intervening period);
• all pupils can expect to have a written agreement. Minimum pupillage awards are
now reviewed annually and are linked to the Living Wage; and
• a new MoU between the BSB, the Council of the Inns of Court (COIC) and the
Inns has brought clarity over roles and responsibilities for the Inns in overseeing
Qualifying Sessions, delivered against an agreed framework: Call to the Bar and
the fit and proper person checks, which now include Disclosure and Barring
Service reports; and the overall responsibility of the Inns over student conduct
and disciplinary proceedings.
7. The BCAT was introduced in 2013 as part of the suite of reforms 2 following the Wood
Review into vocational Bar training which included the introduction of the newly
developed Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) and centralised assessments for
Ethics and Criminal and Civil Litigation. Before launching the FBT programme, we
concluded that the BCAT should remain part of the training pathway as it would
contribute to the key aim of maintaining high standards. However, we committed to
conduct an evaluation of it. In 2015 we evaluated its effectiveness; this evaluation
resulted in the pass score being raised from 37 to 45. In 2020, we conducted another,
longer term evaluation.
8. The reforms resulting from the FBT programme, including the introduction of the
Authorisation Framework, have now almost all been implemented 3, and we are
evaluating the impact of these wider changes, including the impact on students and
standards. The process evaluation (which looks at the implementation of the reforms)
will be complete by August 2022 and the impact evaluation (which looks at the extent to
which the FBT programme met its objectives) is scheduled to be completed by August
2023. The Authorisation Framework will be assessed as part of both evaluations.
The role of the BCAT and evidence for its withdrawal
9. Since its introduction in 2013, the BSB’s aim for the BCAT within the wider training
pathway for the Bar has been to provide a centrally managed and objective (so far as
possible) test to ensure only those with the requisite aptitude for Bar training are allowed
to enrol on a course.
10. This application is being submitted to the LSB to alter our regulatory arrangements for
those seeking to qualify as a barrister by withdrawing the requirement to take, and pass,
the BCAT as a condition of entry to the vocational component of Bar training. Our
decision to withdraw the BCAT as a regulatory requirement was taken based on the
following evidence:
• BCAT evaluation (2015) and BCAT evaluation (2020);
• Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) Key Stats 4 (incl. BPTC Failure rates);
• Authorised Education and Training Organisations (AETO) admissions
requirements, Bar Student Application Service (BarSAS) application and

2
The reforms which created the BPTC replaced the Bar Vocational Course (BVC) in 2010.
3 The only substantive elements of the FBT reforms which have not yet been implemented are the compulsory
courses in advocacy and negotiation during the pupillage/work-based learning component, the requirements for
which will be introduced for pupillages commencing in autumn 2023.
4 These BPTC Key Statistics reports were utilised as part of both the 2015 and 2020 BCAT evaluations.

3
 enrolment data (2013-2018) and AETO admissions criteria and enrolment data
submitted in 2020;
• External Examiner Reports 2018-2020; and
• BSB Authorisation Framework and associated guidance for prospective AETOs.

BCAT evaluations
11. The two evaluations of the BCAT have enabled us to understand how effective the
BCAT has been as a filter for student aptitude.
12. In the 2015 5 evaluation, we observed that the BCAT was not as effective at filtering for
aptitude as intended. As a result of the 2015 evaluation, among other things, we
increased the pass score from 39 to 45 in order to improve its effectiveness.
13. The key findings from our 2020 evaluation 6 are:
• the BCAT has not proved effective at filtering out students likely to fail the BPTC,
with an overall failure rate on the test of 1% of candidates, once retakes are
taken into account;
• the test is not reliable or consistent – the year in which the test was taken
significantly predicts score even when prior attainment is controlled for
(candidates from later years score significantly higher on the test and analysis
suggests test-retest reliability 7 is low); and
• BCAT scores continue to be a reliable predictor of BPTC attainment.
14. Given the findings from our evaluations, we reviewed other available evidence to
understand whether the risks that were present when the BCAT was introduced
persisted and, if so, whether the BCAT remained the most appropriate and
proportionate intervention to address such risks. This review concluded that the risks
that the BCAT was introduced to mitigate in 2013 are no longer manifesting.
BPTC Failure Rates
15. Our primary objectives in introducing the BCAT were to ensure that candidates for the
BPTC had the aptitude to succeed on the course and that the learning experience for all
BPTC students should not adversely be affected by having students who did not have
the necessary aptitude on the course. One way of assessing whether BPTC students
have the necessary aptitude for the course is to measure student failure rates on the
BPTC. Figure 1 shows that the percentage of students failing BPTC, across the five
years from 2013-14 to 2017-18, has declined 8.

5 Following the evaluation in 2015, the pass score was increased from 39 to 45 to increase its effectiveness.
6 Our 2020 evaluation of the BCAT was published in 2021.
7 Test-retest reliability is a measure of the consistency of scores when individuals repeat a test one or more

times. Low test-retest reliability indicates that there is considerable variation in test scores for individuals when
they retake the test.
8 Figure 1 has been taken from the annual BPTC Key Statistics Report up to 2021. Note that cohorts after 2017-

18 are not presented as at the time the most recent report was published, later cohorts were still able to retake
examinations, and thus failure rates would not be comparable to previous years’

4
Figure 1: Percentage of students failing the BPTC between 2013-14 and 2017-18

of failure, those not yet complete, and those withdrawing from the
BPTC
iii
(I)
>, 30.0%
.!:
"U
25.0%
~
0
c
(I)
20.0%
Ill
"E 15.0%
(I)
"U
::J 10.0%
iii
5.0%

0.0%
2013/14 2014/5 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
Withdrawn 2.5% 3.8% 2.2% 2.8% 2.0%
■ Fa il 20.1 % 15.6% 14.3% 7.5% 7.4%
■ Not yet complete 4.0% 2.9% 4.1% 4.0% 8.0%

Course provider admissions requirements

16. Whilst the data above, from our 2020 evaluation, shows improvements in student
performance over the life of the BCAT, we do not believe these improvements are due
to the BCAT preventing less capable students from enrolling.
17. One of the reasons for the reduced failure rates is likely to be course providers
introducing more robust admissions requirements (e.g. interviews or prior academic
attainment) to filter out students who are less likely to succeed on the course. This is
because the BCAT is directly excluding or filtering only 1% (on average) of test takers,
whereas course providers’ admissions procedures seem to be excluding nearly half of
applicants. Moreover, data from the Bar Student Application Service (BarSAS) from the
introduction of the BCAT in 2013 until 2018 9 shows that only 53.8% of BPTC applicants
were accepted and enrolled on the course, and more recent data from course providers
suggests that a similar proportion of all applicants (around 55%) are accepted currently -
in contrast, the BCAT excluded less than 1% of test takers.
18. Over the same period, we have observed a steady improvement in students’
qualifications gained 10 before enrolling on the BPTC; this may mean that course
providers are becoming more selective in their admissions, and/or less capable students
are self-selecting by not enrolling on a Bar training course. Moreover, failure at the
BCAT does not seem to be deterring students from seeking to enrol on the BPTC since
the proportion of those applying for admission to the BPTC despite failing the test once
or even twice is not dissimilar to the proportion who pass the BCAT first time.
19. In addition to the improvements observed relating to student performance, some course
providers have recently introduced interviews or higher undergraduate degree
classification requirements as part of their admission process. For example, some
course providers, are now requiring a first or upper second-class degree, rather than a
lower second-class degree (the minimum standard classification required by the BSB).
Other course providers also require an upper second-class degree as the minimum but

9The use of the BarSAS system for course enrolment was discontinued in 2019.
10First degree classification (e.g. a first class or upper second class degree as a opposed to the minimum degree
award, a lower second class).

5
 will consider students with a lower second-class degree if other areas of the candidate’s
application are exceptional, citing excellent academic performance subsequent to
completion of the undergraduate degree, work experience, and strength of the
application as areas where a student can demonstrate excellence.
External Examiner Reports
20. We appoint External Examiners who act on our behalf in monitoring the consistency of
standards of assessments set and marked by course providers. The system of External
Examiners operates broadly in accordance with the QAA’s Quality Code (chapter B7).
Our External Examiners are responsible for confirming that:

• the assessment process measures student achievement rigorously and fairly in

line with the Curriculum and Assessment Strategy; and
• the standards and the achievements of students are consistent between course
providers.
21. Prior to the 2020-21 academic year, their role also involved observing classes and
speaking to students. There were a series of External Examiner reports leading up to
the introduction of the BCAT, which highlighted the problem of less capable students
having a negative impact on the learning experience of the more capable students.
22. As part of our review of the BCAT, we revisited External Examiner reports from the last
two years to understand if External Examiners have noted concerns similar to those
reported prior to the BCAT’s introduction more recently.
23. Having reviewed the External Examiner reports, there is no evidence of complaints
similar to those reported to us in the years preceding the BCAT’s introduction. Student
satisfaction (as reported by students to the External Examiners) was also high. In the
2018-19 year, one course provider was commended by an External Examiner for having
improved admissions and the resulting conversion rates for students obtaining
pupillages. Based on the above, it appears that the widespread concerns relating to
aptitude raised at the time the BCAT was introduced in 2013 have not been reported
recently.
24. However, as part of our Annual Reflective Review process, some course providers have
reported some student complaints about the language proficiency of some of their
peers. Course providers are required to verify students’ proficiency and there are clear
mechanisms for the BSB’s Supervision Team to monitor compliance and take action
where course providers are not taking appropriate steps to verify students’ English
language abilities 11. We will continue to monitor this with course providers, but it is
important to distinguish between academic aptitude and English language proficiency.
The BCAT was not designed to measure the latter.
Conclusions on the BCAT and risks
25. The analysis above shows that the risks highlighted prior to the BCAT’s introduction in
2013 do not seem to be presenting now and the improvements observed in student
performance on the BPTC (i.e. reductions in failure rates on the BPTC) cannot be
attributed to the BCAT. In light of recent External Examiner reports and changes to
course providers’ admissions criteria, we have concluded that the BCAT is no longer
necessary or appropriate as filter for student aptitude.

11 BSB Authorisation Framework 2018, p10.

6
How we expect Bar course providers to filter for aptitude
26. The decision to withdraw the BCAT will have a positive impact on the Future Bar
Training (FBT) principles of affordability and accessibility by removing unnecessary
barriers without compromising standards on entry to Bar training. This is because the
Authorisation Framework sets the standards that organisations (known as Authorised
Education and Training Organisations, or AETOs) must meet in order to provide
education and training for the Bar. It also sets entry requirements for each component
and, where appropriate, shows component entry requirements for specific pathways
which are approved.
27. At the point of authorisation as an AETO, course providers must demonstrate how they
strike an appropriate balance between the key principles of high standards (e.g.
selective admissions processes and accessibility (e.g. potential adverse equality
impacts) as set out in the Authorisation Framework.
28. A guidance document is provided to prospective course providers, which sets out how
they should demonstrate compliance. All prospective course providers must
demonstrate compliance with the requirements relating recruitment and admissions
(indicators 37.3 and 46.5). The guidance provides prompting questions to which course
providers should respond. It lists the following as examples of evidence that can be
used to support their answer:

• Their published recruitment and admission policies and entry requirements

(including accreditation of prior or experiential learning if appropriate).
• Their recruitment and admissions rationale/strategy (this is likely to be an extract
from an internal validation document).
• A summary of the research and evidence underpinning their choice of entry
requirements, for example data correlating successful completion of the
academic and vocational (integrated) or vocational components, successful
completion of pupillage, or successfully developing a career at the Bar with data
on prior achievement, mode and place of study, language ability etc.
• Plans to evaluate the operation of recruitment and admission policies with
reference to whether an appropriate balance is being struck between the key
principle of supporting access to delivery of the academic and vocational
(integrated) or vocational components with the need to ensure that only those
likely to benefit from such training are admitted.
• Information relating to their recruitment and admission policies and procedures
provided to students.
29. At the application stage, each answer to the indicators is reviewed and risk assessed by
a panel of BSB staff and at least two external experts for quality assurance and
consistency purposes, with each assessor utilising the “Assessor Indicators” for High,
Medium and Low Risk. A training provider assessed as Low Risk will have
demonstrated the following attributes:

• AETO has a clear set of recruitment and admission policies and procedures that
reflect the prerequisites for enrolment on the academic and vocational
(integrated) or vocational components of training as set out in the Authorisation
Framework.
• AETO has, in devising its recruitment and admission policies and procedures,
achieved an appropriate and evidenced-based balancing of the key principle of
supporting access to its delivery of the academic and vocational (integrated) or

7
 vocational components with the need to ensure that only those likely to benefit
from such training are admitted.
• AETO is committed to an effective process of evaluating the effectiveness of its
recruitment and admission policies and the extent to which they strike an
appropriate balance between the key principle of supporting access to its
delivery of the academic and vocational (integrated) or vocational components
with the need to ensure that only those likely to benefit from such training are
admitted.
• AETO has shown how it ensures that its recruitment and admission policies and
procedures are clearly communicated to students.
30. Once authorised, a training provider will become subject to ongoing supervision by the
BSB. We do this by monitoring admissions data – similarly to that which we used to
obtain from the BarSAS – and ongoing supervision interactions with both course
providers and students. As part of our wider approach to supervision, we will be
interested to understand if there are any changes in the following areas:

• Student perceptions relating to disruptions from fellow students;

• Student prior attainment;
• Equality and diversity 12; and
• Student performance on the course 13.
31. All vocational course providers are also required to be registered with the Office for
Students (OfS). This gives further assurance that providers will have met OfS
requirements around Access and Participation.
32. Given the authorisation process, as set out above, and the ongoing supervision of
course providers, we are assured that there is sufficient regulatory oversight of
admissions and that no further changes to the authorisation framework will be
necessary at this stage once the BCAT is withdrawn. Furthermore, we believe that we
are now better placed to identify and address any future concerns, should they arise.
Regulatory objectives
33. This section sets out the impact of the proposal on the Regulatory Objectives. Where
regulatory objectives are not mentioned, this is because we have assessed there to be
no impact, either positive or negative.
Protecting and promoting the public interest
34. When the BCAT was introduced, we said that such an aptitude test was necessary to
address the risk of high numbers of students failing a Bar training course and to
maintain high standards and student experience on the course. As such, it was
consistent with the regulatory objectives of “protecting and promoting the public interest”
and “encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession”. This is
because the BCAT was developed to ensure that only those capable of passing the
course should be allowed to enrol on a Bar training course. Our regulatory requirement
(the BCAT) was justified, based on the evidence of risks at the time of implementation.

12 As mentioned above, our supervision team is responsible for monitoring AETOs for compliance with the

Authorisation Framework. As such, we will be looking at how course providers demonstrate the balancing of the
principles of High Standards against Accessibility. If there are any changes in the diversity of student intakes, we
will work with providers to understand what might be causing such changes.
13 Whilst we will be monitoring performance on exams and overall pass/fail rates, we are now taking a more

longitudinal view of cohorts rather than year-by-year as courses are not as linear as they used to be.

8
35. Throughout our review, we considered whether the BCAT remains a necessary and
proportionate regulatory requirement for the protection and promotion of the public
interest. The standards expected of the profession depend on a high level of intellectual
ability, a firm foundation of legal knowledge and skills, and the confidence to use those
skills in challenging circumstances. When the BCAT was introduced, the evidence
available suggested that the number of students failing the vocational component of Bar
training was high; too many students who had little prospect of successfully completing
a Bar training course were being enrolled. This was also said by some to be having a
detrimental impact on the learning experience of their peers and the ability of lecturers
to teach the course. The BCAT was introduced to mitigate these risks by “filtering” for
aptitude and preventing such students from enrolling on a Bar training course.
36. However, the evidence available to us now shows that these risks are no longer
present. To understand whether those risks persist, we also considered further evidence
as part of our evaluation and review of the BCAT, including:

• External Examiner reports: Recent reports include no evidence of complaints

similar to those reported in the years preceding the BCAT’s introduction. Student
satisfaction (as reported by students to the External Examiners) was also high;

• Admissions processes of course providers: In combination with other training

reforms that have since been introduced, course providers’ admissions are much
more effective than the BCAT as a filter for aptitude; and

• Student success on the course: When resits are taken into account, 83% of
students passed the BPTC and were called to the Bar. This shows that – even
for a difficult course – the students being enrolled are generally doing so with the
requisite aptitude to succeed.
37. Our review also considered what, if any, consequences may arise if we were to rely
solely on the admissions criteria of authorised education and training organisations
(AETOs) and our own ongoing supervision of course providers’ role in applying policies
to admit candidates who demonstrate aptitude for a career at the Bar. We believe that,
because the BCAT has been ineffective and that providers of Bar training are better
placed to filter out students based on aptitude, there is no public interest detriment by
removing the BCAT. Furthermore, we have the assurance that all course providers now
delivering training have been through an authorisation process where they must
demonstrate how they meet indicators of compliance around admissions in the
Authorisation Framework, as described above.
Encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession
38. At the time of the BCAT’s introduction, we identified the following possible equality
impacts:
• students from minority ethnic backgrounds may be less successful than those
from White backgrounds overall. However, the introduction of the BCAT was
justified on the basis that it was a proportionate method of ensuring that those
training for the Bar had the appropriate level of critical reasoning to engage on
the course;
• at the time of its introduction no adverse impacts were identified on disability
(subject to students being able to request reasonable adjustments); and
• the cost of the BCAT may have had an adverse impact on those who are from
disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. However, this impact was justified

9
 on the basis that the BCAT was necessary to achieve the outcomes sought. It
was also felt that it was better for students to know if they lacked the aptitude for
the course, in order to avoid the considerable expense of being unsuccessful.
39. The impact on social mobility and diversity was a key consideration when introducing
the BCAT. It was intended to create a ‘level playing field’ for all, regardless of
background, and eliminate discrimination by being a universal requirement. A relatively
low pass score was also adopted initially, in order to minimise adverse impacts. This
was revisited in 2016 when our analysis suggested that the pass mark could be raised
from 37 to 45 without a significant adverse effect on students from certain backgrounds.
40. In response to our consultation on the BCAT 2021, some respondents reported that they
believe the BCAT to be context free (i.e. free from bias) and, therefore, that it promotes
equality. We believe that the BCAT continues to carry potential adverse equality
impacts, such as those highlighted above. We previously took steps to mitigate these
and to the extent that they remained, they were justified on the basis that the risks
relating to student aptitude needed to be addressed. If we were to retain the BCAT and
make it more difficult to pass (one of the things that has been suggested by some
respondents), we would be concerned about exacerbating any equality impacts, as our
previous modelling in 2016 has indicated it would. In any case, we no longer believe that
any such negative impacts could be justified because the risks no longer persist.
41. We believe the removal of the BCAT may remove barriers to entering the legal
profession. For example, our recent equality impact assessment has found that the
BCAT could be a potential barrier to those who are neuro-divergent, and we have found
that a disproportionate number of older candidates are less likely to enrol on a Bar
training course after passing the BCAT. For older candidates, this could be because the
BCAT has helped to inform their decision on enrolling on a Bar training course, or that
they are, for one reason or another, unsuccessful in securing a place on a Bar training
course. We were unable to draw any further conclusions about this from the responses
to the consultation.
42. The BCAT was also seen by many respondents to be a deterrent to those from
disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds and has a disproportionate impact on
those from minority ethnic backgrounds. Therefore, removing the BCAT may have a
positive impact on equality and diversity in the student body, which we hope will improve
equality and diversity in the profession and encourage an independent, strong, diverse,
and effective legal profession. We will closely monitor the equality impacts of providers’
admissions processes to ensure there is no negative equality impact.
Improving access to justice
43. There may be a positive impact on access to justice if prospective barristers who might
have been deterred from pursuing a career at the Bar due to costs and “additional
hurdles” are encouraged to proceed. This could make the profession more reflective of
the public it serves.
Better regulation principles
44. The following sets out how the proposals take into account the Better Regulation
Principles:
Proportionate
45. The primary objective of our review of the BCAT was to determine whether it continued
to be both necessary and proportionate. To determine whether a regulatory intervention

10
 such as the BCAT (or any other measure) is necessary, we sought to understand if the
risks that the BCAT was introduced to mitigate were still present. And, based on the
current risk assessment, what course of action is most targeted and proportionate to
mitigate those risks.
46. As discussed above, our review concluded that the risks associated with student
aptitude were not currently presenting. In part, we believe this is because of our reforms
to Bar training and the introduction of the Authorisation Framework, which provides the
BSB with a process for working with providers to ensure that any future concerns over
student aptitude are addressed. We, therefore, concluded that the BCAT was no longer
a proportionate regulatory intervention, and any risks could more appropriately be
addressed via our oversight of course providers and monitoring of training outcomes.
Targeted
47. For the reasons discussed under proportionality, we have concluded that our regulatory
efforts are better targeted at providers via the Authorisation Framework and our ongoing
oversight of their admissions activities; we will also seek feedback from students
regularly. Should there be a concern over student aptitude or student experience on a
particular course, we will work with the provider to ensure these concerns are
investigated and action is taken.
Accountable
48. We are responsible for providing clear, evidence-based, justifications for any measures
we seek to impose or remove to the public, users of legal services, the profession and
employers, and ultimately the Legal Services Board.
49. At the time of the BCAT’s approval by the Legal Services Board, we committed to an
evaluation after a number of years. Following the first full year, we carried out an
evaluation, which led to some changes, including increasing the pass score from 37 to
45. In 2020 a more long-term evaluation was carried out and published alongside our
consultation in 2021. Our decision to review the BCAT from first principles was based on
the findings from our evaluations. We are, therefore, accountable for previous decisions
and for acting on new evidence as it is gathered.
Transparent
50. In addition to the reasons stated above under the principle of accountability, we have
sought to be transparent about our decision making at every stage. We have
undertaken evaluations of the BCAT at different stages, EIAs were carried out alongside
consultations, we engaged with all stakeholders and made amendments to our analyses
accordingly. The responses to our consultation and the views of stakeholders were
analysed (and taken on board) before deciding on the basis of the evidence, to withdraw
the BCAT as a requirement for students enrolling on a Bar training course.
51. The table below shows a timeline of our work on the BCAT.
Year Activity
2008 Wood Report – Among other things, an aptitude test was
recommended.
2009-2012 Equality Impact Assessments – An initial impact assessment on the
BCAT was carried out in 2009. This was subsequently updated
following a pilot of the BCAT in 2011 and finally following a public
consultation on the introduction of the BCAT.

11
 2011 BCAT pilots concluded
2011/12 Public consultation on the introduction of the BCAT
2015 BCAT Evaluation carried out following first year
2016 Equality Impact Assessment
2016 Pass score increases from 37 to 45
2020 BCAT Evaluation – long term evaluation
2021/22 Equality Impact Assessment
2021 Review and consultation on the future of the BCAT

Consistent
52. The decision to withdraw the BCAT is consistent with our overall approach to training at
the Bar, including how course providers are authorised and supervised. Consistency is
assured through our ongoing supervision of course providers and the Authorisation
Framework, which places obligations on them to demonstrate how they will meet
indicators of compliance around admissions. All providers are also required to be
registered with the Office for Students. We, therefore, are assured that our approach to
our oversight of course providers will apply in a consistent manner without the BCAT.
Alterations
A. Details of each alteration

53. This application consists of one over-arching change to the regulatory arrangements for
those seeking to qualify as a barrister, by removing the requirement to take, and pass,
the Bar Course Aptitude Test (BCAT) as a condition of entry to the vocational
component of Bar training.
54. There are no provisions in the BSB Handbook which require alteration. However, the
BSB’s Authorisation Framework, Curriculum and Assessment Strategy and Bar
Qualification Manual will all be amended to give effect to the proposed removal of the
BCAT as a requirement. These documents underpin the new rules framework that was
approved in 2019 and were referred to in our application to the LSB at the time. It was
agreed that the detail of these documents did not need to be approved in addition to the
rules. As such, we would not normally see changes to these documents as amounting to
changes to the BSB’s regulatory arrangements that require approval by the LSB.
However, in this instance the changes that we are implementing amount to a more
substantial change in our approach and as such they do constitute a change to our
regulatory arrangements, i.e. removing the BCAT as a regulatory requirement.
55. The proposed alterations, explained below and shown in the following tables, reflect the
proposed changes which will be brought into force, should this application be approved.
Authorisation Framework
56. The BSB’s Authorisation Framework sets out the standards that organisations (known
as Authorised Education and Training Organisations, or AETOs) must meet in order to
provide education and training for the Bar. It distinguishes between organisations that
wish to offer an academic and vocational (integrated) or vocational component, which
are likely to be universities or other providers of education, and those that wish to offer a

12
 pupillage/work-based component, which are likely to be chambers and organisations
that employ barristers and/or solicitors. It also sets out entry requirements for each
component and, where appropriate, shows component entry requirements for specific
pathways which are approved.
Proposed alterations
57. The over-arching policy change – to withdraw the BCAT as an entry requirement for Bar
vocational training – will require the following consequential changes (references to the
BCAT will be withdrawn).
58. The table below shows the text which will be altered.
Current provisions Proposed alterations
11.2 Prior to beginning the vocational Prior to beginning the vocational component,
component, students will be required to students will be required to take the Bar
take the Bar Course Aptitude Test Course Aptitude Test (BCAT) and to join an
(BCAT) and to join an Inn of Court as a Inn of Court as a student member. In order to
student member. In order to be Called to be Called to the Bar, all candidates for Call
the Bar, all candidates for Call must must complete a specified programme of
complete a specified programme of professional development activities at their Inn
professional development activities at of Court known as “Qualifying Sessions”.
their Inn of Court known as “Qualifying
Sessions”.

12.5 AETOs must apply the following
admissions criteria to the vocational
component in the three-step and four-
step pathways:
● An undergraduate degree classified as
not less than a lower second class
honours (2:2) or equivalent. This can be
either a law degree, or a non-law degree
plus further graduate/post-graduate study
and in either case must cover the seven
foundations of legal knowledge and
satisfy the Professional Statement
Competence 1.2; and
● passing the Bar Course Aptitude Test
(BCAT); and
● verification that the student’s English
language ability is a minimum of IELTS
7.5 in each section of the test, or
equivalent.
12.6 AETOs must ensure that the following
additional admissions criteria are satisfied
at an agreed point in the integrated
academic and vocational pathway and
the apprenticeship pathway –
● passing the Bar Course Aptitude Test
(BCAT); and
AETOs must apply the following admissions
criteria to the vocational component in the
three-step and four-step pathways:
● An undergraduate degree classified as not
less than a lower second class honours (2:2)
or equivalent. This can be either a law degree,
or a non-law degree plus further
graduate/post-graduate study and in either
case must cover the seven foundations of legal
knowledge and satisfy the Professional
Statement Competence 1.2; and
● passing the Bar Course Aptitude Test
(BCAT); and
● verification that the student’s English
language ability is a minimum of IELTS 7.5 in
each section of the test, or equivalent.
AETOs must ensure that verification that the
student’s English language ability is of IELTS
7.5 (or equivalent) in each section of the test is
the following additional admissions criteria are
satisfied at an agreed point in the integrated
academic and vocational pathway and the
apprenticeship pathway. –

13
 ● verification that the student’s English
language ability is a minimum of IELTS
7.5 in each section of the test, or
equivalent.
● passing the Bar Course Aptitude Test
(BCAT); and
● verification that the student’s English
language ability is a minimum of IELTS 7.5 in
each section of the test, or equivalent.

59. Where there are further references to the BCAT in depictions of each authorised
pathway, these references will also be deleted from the document.
Curriculum and Assessment Strategy
60. The Curriculum and Assessment Strategy sets out the requirements for all three
components of training for the Bar: academic, vocational and pupillage/work-based
learning.
Proposed alterations
61. The over-arching policy change – to withdraw the BCAT as an entry requirement for Bar
vocational training – will require the following consequential changes (references to the
BCAT will be withdrawn.)
62. The table below shows the text which will be altered.
Current provisions Proposed alterations
BCAT It is proposed that the Headline is
In order to proceed to the vocational deleted but the first sentence retained.
component of training for the Bar, All other sentenced will be deleted.
prospective barristers will need to have
met the admission requirements set out in BCAT
the Authorisation Framework. One of In order to proceed to the vocational
these requirements is successfully component of training for the Bar,
passing the Bar Course Aptitude Test prospective barristers will need to have
(BCAT). The BCAT tests aptitude for met the admission requirements set out
critical thinking and reasoning, which are in the Authorisation Framework. One of
key skills required for training for the Bar. these requirements is successfully
The aim of the BCAT is to ensure that passing the Bar Course Aptitude Test
those undertaking the vocational (BCAT). The BCAT tests aptitude for
component of training have the aptitude to critical thinking and reasoning, which are
succeed. key skills required for training for the
Bar. The aim of the BCAT is to ensure
that those undertaking the vocational
component of training have the aptitude
to succeed.

Bar Qualification Manual

63. The Bar Qualification Manual (BQM) has been designed to provide further information
relating to the Bar Qualification Rules (Part 4 of the BSB Handbook) and to bring
together information held in the other documents such as the Authorisation Framework,
Curriculum and Assessment Strategy, the Memorandum of Understanding with the Inns
of Court.
Proposed alterations

14
64. The over-arching policy change – to withdraw the BCAT as an entry requirement for Bar
vocational training – will require the following consequential changes (the BCAT will be
removed.)
65. The table below shows the text which will be altered.
Current provisions Proposed alterations

3A 1 Applicants for a place on the BPTC or,
from 1 September 2020, a new Bar Training
Course must:
a. have completed the academic component
of Bar training (see Part 2 of this Bar
Qualification Manual);
b. have passed the Bar Course Aptitude Test
(BCAT) (see Part 3C of this Bar Qualification
Manual);
c. be a member of one of the Inns of
Court (see Part 5A of this Bar Qualification
Manual); and
d. be fluent in English.
2 Please note that providers may impose
additional selection criteria over and above
the minimum requirements specified above.
Please check the website of individual
providers for more information about their
entry requirements.
1 Applicants for a place on the BPTC or,
from 1 September 2020, a new Bar
Training Course must:
a. have completed the academic
component of Bar training (see Part 2 of
this Bar Qualification Manual);
b. have passed the Bar Course
Aptitude Test (BCAT) (see Part 3C of
this Bar Qualification Manual);
b. be a member of one of the Inns of
Court (see Part 5A of this Bar
Qualification Manual); and
c. be fluent in English.
2 Please note that providers may
impose additional selection criteria over
and above the minimum requirements
specified above. Please check the
website of individual providers for more
information about their entry
requirements.

This section includes information on It is proposed that the entire 3C section

the Bar Course Aptitude Test (BCAT) is deleted.
including what the test involves, how to
book a sitting, reasonable adjustments,
extenuating circumstances, and
complaints.
Overview

1 Candidates must pass the BCAT before

they can enrol on a vocational component
Bar Training Course. We strongly
recommend taking the BCAT earlier rather
than later in case a re-take is necessary.
Also, in previous years the BCAT has been
fully booked in the run-up to the closing date.
If no slots are available, you will not be able
to take the test and will not be admitted to a
Bar Training Course, even if you meet all the
other requirements.

2 More information about the BCAT can be

found in the BCAT Handbook. We also have
a list of frequently asked
questions (FAQs). If you cannot find the
answer to your question, please email us
at BCAT@barstandardsboard.org.uk.

Opening and closing dates

3 You can register for this year's BCAT from
Tuesday, 4 May 2021 to Monday, 21 March
2022. You register for the BCAT online via

15
the Pearson VUE website. Please read the
Pearson Vue statement about test delivery
information in light of COVID-19
(coronavirus).

4 You can sit this year's BCAT from Monday,

10 May 2021 to Monday, 28 March
2022. You schedule the BCAT via
the Pearson Vue website. The BCAT closes
each year in March to refresh the bank and
usually reopens in May. As soon as the
reopening date of the BCAT is agreed with
Pearson Vue, we will publish it here.

What the test involves

5 The BCAT tests aptitude for critical thinking
and reasoning. These are key skills required
for the vocational component of Bar training.
The aim of the test is to ensure that those
undertaking Bar Training Courses have the
aptitude to succeed on the course. The test
consists of 60 multiple choice questions,
lasts 55 minutes and is completed on a
computer at an authorised Pearson VUE test
centre. The test costs £150 in the UK and EU
or £170 in the rest of the world. The test is in
English and does not require any legal
knowledge.

Practice test
6 To familiarise yourself with the BCAT, you
should try the free practice test. The
practice test is the same length, difficulty and
format as the actual test. At the end you will
be told if you passed or failed.

7 On the practice test page there is also

additional information regarding what the
BCAT measures, why the BCAT is being
used, the validity study carried out, and tips
on how to improve your critical thinking skills.

How long is your BCAT pass valid for?

8 BCAT passes before 2016, or from 19
December 2016, are valid for five years.

9 For candidates who took the BCAT

between April and August 2016:
• BCAT passes scoring 45 or more are
valid for five years.
• BCAT passes scoring 44 or less
were only valid to enrol on the BPTC
in September 2016.
10 If you passed the BCAT between October
2014 and September 2015, the last BPTC
you could have enrolled on with that pass
started in September 2019.

Booking your test

16
11 You schedule and pay for the BCAT using
the Pearson VUE website. Pearson has test
centres in the following countries. For
questions about test centres, registering for
the test and payment queries, please contact
the Pearson VUE customer service for
your relevant region.

Reasonable adjustments
12 If you would like to request reasonable
adjustments (accommodations),
please create an account on the Pearson
VUE website (this will give you a BCAT ID)
then read the reasonable adjustment
policy and finally complete the reasonable
adjustment form.

13 Do NOT book the BCAT online, this will

result in you arriving at the test centre to find
you are booked for a standard test with no
reasonable adjustments.

14 For reasonable adjustments such as a

reader, a recorder, or a braille test, both we
and Pearson VUE require six weeks'
notice to put these in place for your test. For
reasonable adjustments such as extra time
or a separate room, we and Pearson VUE
require two weeks' notice to put these in
place for your test. We and Pearson VUE will
try and accommodate all reasonable
adjustment requests but reserve the right to
decline requests that do not provide the
notice periods indicated above.

15 Once completed, please email

the adjustment
form to BCAT@barstandardsboard.org.uk,
together with supporting documentation.

Extenuating circumstances
16 If you were prevented from attending a
booked test due to circumstances outside of
your control, you can apply for a free re-take
under the extenuating
circumstances policy. Please read
the extenuating circumstances policy
before completing the form.

17 Forms must be submitted no later

than five working days after any scheduled
test taking that was affected by extenuating
circumstances.

Complaints
18 If you would like to make a complaint
about the BCAT, please read the BCAT
Complaints Policy before completing
the BCAT Stage 2 Complaints

17
 Form or BCAT Stage 3 Complaints Form,
as directed by the policy.

9A Bar Course Aptitude Test (BCAT) means
the test of aptitude for critical thinking
and reasoning required for admission to
a vocational training course.
9B
It is proposed that this definition will be
deleted.
From 31 July 2022, the Bar Course
Aptitude Test (BCAT) is no longer an
entry requirement for enrolment on a
vocational component training course.

B. The rationale for the alterations

66. The effectiveness of the BCAT as an aptitude test has been evaluated by the BSB
twice, in 2015 14 and 2020 15. Whilst a student’s BCAT score continued to be a strong
predictor of outcome on the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC), other key
findings showed:
• the BCAT has not proved effective at filtering out students likely to fail the BPTC,
with an overall failure rate on the test of 1% of candidates once retakes are
taken into account; and
• the test does not seem to be reliable or consistent.

67. Further evidence was considered (see ‘The role of BCAT and evidence for its
withdrawal’ above). The BSB Board has decided to withdraw the BCAT on the basis
that:
a. The BCAT is not acting as a filter for aptitude for the vocational component of
Bar training. As this was its primary function, the BCAT is no longer a
proportionate regulatory requirement.
b. The evolution of admissions processes used by providers of Bar training in
recent years (e.g. more widespread use of interviews and practical exercises at
the point of selection) had already led to a shift towards a more selective
approach. Course providers are now required to have clear and robust
admissions policies giving due regard to the principles of Future Bar Training
which include high standards. These changes have been much more effective
than the BCAT at “filtering” out students without the aptitude to succeed on a
Bar training course.
c. The risks that BCAT was introduced to mitigate in 2013 are no longer present.
68. Under the Authorisation Framework and through our ongoing supervision activities, we
have systems in place that are better suited to monitor and evaluate the impact of
admissions processes. Furthermore, we believe that this process better promotes the
regulatory objectives in the following ways:
• Protecting and promoting the public interest: This objective is furthered by the
BSB ensuring that regulations are necessary and proportionate. Our new
authorisation process and ongoing supervision of course providers shows that,
should the BCAT be withdrawn, there are other systems in place to provide
assurance that only those with the aptitude for Bar will be enrolled on training
courses. (See paragraphs 34-37.)

14
BCAT Evaluation 2015
15
BCAT Evaluation 2020

18
 • Encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession: This
objective is furthered by removing potential barriers to entry and encouraging
students from diverse backgrounds to train for the Bar. (See paragraphs 38-42.)
• Improving access to justice: This objective is furthered by allowing course
providers the discretion to balance the need for selective admissions against
accessibility. (See paragraph 43.)
69. The effect of our proposed alterations is to withdraw the BCAT for all students intending
to enrol on a Bar training course. This also means that we will rely on course providers
to continue assessing student aptitude in a robust and fair manner which is consistent
with the obligations of their registration with the Office for Students (OfS) and in line with
the BSB’s principles of Bar training which relate to improving accessibility, affordability
and flexibility whilst retaining high standards.
C. Implementation
70. We have aimed to be clear and transparent with stakeholders about the purpose of our
review, the timescales for concluding it and the fact that the BCAT would apply until a
final decision is taken. For example, at the time of issuing the consultation we explained
the timescales for the review and requested (and continue to do so) that the providers
make students aware of the ongoing consultation and the decision that has been taken.
Pearson VUE has also committed to providing a statement for students to inform them
of any updates.
71. Following the Board’s decision in March 2022 to withdraw the BCAT as a regulatory
requirement, we contacted course providers and issued a public statement informing
students, the press and stakeholders that we would seek approval from the LSB to
change to our regulatory arrangements. As such, we are working with Pearson VUE to
withdraw the requirement as soon as practically possible. Subject to the LSB’s approval,
we have provisionally set the date of 31 July 2022 as the last date the BCAT will be a
requirement of entry to a Bar training course. Students intending to begin courses in
September 2022, therefore, will not be required to sit the BCAT as part of the entry
requirements.
72. However, for students enrolling on a Bar training course which starts in July 2022, the
BCAT will remain a requirement. We have, therefore, reopened the BCAT between May
and July 2022 to provide certainty for students, especially international students, who
have a longer lead time for visa applications.
73. The removal of the BCAT also means that we need to make some changes to the way
students’ Bar training records on MyBar are created. This process currently begins
when a student registers with Pearson VUE to sit the BCAT; by doing so, a MyBar
profile is created and verified by the student via email. The changes we are making will
not cause any disruption to students as the MyBar profile will simply be created when
they enrol on a Bar training course and we receive the enrolment data from their
provider.
74. We have consulted the course providers on the impact of implementing the decision to
withdraw the BCAT and they have confirmed they do not need to make significant
changes.
D. Impact on other regulated persons or approved regulators
75. There are no identified impacts or conflicts on other regulated persons or approved
regulators. We have ensured that all other institutions involved in education and training

19
 of lawyers in the UK are aware of the changes so that any information they provide to
prospective law students can also be updated. We have done this through
communication with Bar course providers and the Committee of Heads of UK Law
Schools (CHULS) and the Association of Graduate Careers Advisory (AGCAS).
Consultation and Engagement
76. The consultation on the future of the BCAT ran from 1 September to 31 October 2021.
In parallel, we surveyed a sample of BCAT candidates from the last three years to gain
the views of BCAT candidates: both those who went on to enrol on a Bar training
course, and those who decided not to continue studying for a career at the Bar. This
survey asked similar questions to the consultation but was targeted at former BCAT
takers to better understand their views on the BCAT’s effectiveness. During the
consultation period, we also undertook targeted engagement in the form of roundtable
discussions.
77. There were 17 responses to the consultation 16. There were 28 responses to the BCAT
candidates survey. A summary of consultation responses is provided in the Annex.
Once the consultation closed, we also had further meetings with Bar course providers,
the Bar Council, and the Inns to discuss issues raised by them in their consultation
responses.
78. The consultation presented our analysis of risk and evidence. It offered respondents
three possible options for the future of the BCAT and invited them to provide any other
option they considered to be feasible:
Option 1: Retain the BCAT in its current form as a prerequisite for all students
enrolling on a Bar training course;
Option 2: Retain the BCAT as a prerequisite for all students enrolling on a Bar
training course but amend it so that it is a more effective filter; and
Option 3: Withdraw the BCAT as a prerequisite for students enrolling on a Bar
training course.
Findings from the consultation
79. The responses did not provide a clear consensus on any of the options provided 17.
Option 1: 1 (out of 17) consultation respondents and 2 (out of 28) BCAT candidates
survey respondents preferred this option.
Option 2: 5 (out of 17) consultation respondents and 13 (out of 28) BCAT candidates
survey respondents preferred this option. Respondents did not offer any suggestions
on how the BCAT might be altered or what other form of regulatory filter might be
implemented.
Option 3: 11 (out of 17) consultation respondents chose this option. The
respondents included those who were members of staff at Bar course providers but
responding in an individual capacity, and the Legal Services Consumer Panel. 9 (out
of 28) BCAT candidates survey respondents preferred this option. One additional

16 This includes: the Bar Council, Lincoln’s Inn, the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP), BPP University,
University of Law, Pearson VUE, an individual lecturer from City University (responding as an individual), City
Law School (responding as an individual); individual students; individual barristers, and the BSB’s independent
psychometrician.
17 Only 25 out of 28 respondents to the student survey responded to the question on preferred option.

20
 respondent to the student survey preferred either this option or Option 2, and the
remaining 3 did not express a preference for any of the options.
80. It was clear that most respondents did not believe that the BCAT in its current format is
acting as a filter for aptitude. For example, the Legal Services Consumer Panel (LSCP)
stated that it believes the BCAT to be an ineffective and unnecessary barrier, and that,
following the reforms to Bar training, providers of Bar training are better placed to filter
out students based on aptitude. This view was shared by almost all of the providers of
Bar training. The providers also stated that the BCAT does not inform their offer of
enrolment and it is merely a condition of enrolment. Many students do not sit the BCAT
prior to receiving an offer of enrolment to save the expense of the BCAT.
Issues considered in the consultation
81. The BCAT was introduced to mitigate the risks associated with people enrolling on the
Bar training course without the required aptitude. To understand whether those risks
persist, we considered, as part of our evaluation and review of the BCAT:

• External Examiner reports. They include no evidence of complaints similar to

those reported in the years preceding the BCAT’s introduction. Student
satisfaction (as reported by students to the External Examiners) was also high;
and
• the admissions processes of providers of Bar Training course (in combination
with other training reforms that have since been introduced). This confirmed that,
in practice, the admissions processes are now filtering candidates rather than
the BCAT.
82. In discussions with the Bar Council and the Inns, there was a suggestion that some
providers cannot be relied on to filter for aptitude. Our view is that each provider takes a
considered, thorough, and robust approach to admissions criteria and filtering for
aptitude. Whilst there will be variation in their approaches, providers must all have due
regard to the indicators of compliance in the Authorisation Framework (including
accessibility and high standards) and this enables us to assure ourselves of consistency
at the point of authorisation and in ongoing supervision of the providers. Therefore, we
concluded that the risks that existed when the BCAT was introduced no longer persist.
83. The Bar Council and the Inns also stated that it was premature to withdraw the BCAT,
given the reforms to Bar training are relatively new. They also cite recent student
performance on the centralised assessments (Winter 2020 and Spring 2021) as
evidence that too many students are enrolling on Bar training courses without the
requisite aptitude. They believe, therefore, that the previous risks are beginning to re-
emerge and that there is a continuing need for a centrally managed filter.
84. The views of the Chair of the Centralised Examination Board, and the BSB’s
independent psychometrician, were that the centralised assessments are one measure
of performance. These results must be seen as only one reference point in the context
of a student’s performance or a particular cohort’s overall performance on the course.
85. In line with the BSB’s principles for Bar training, success is not measured by ability to
pass the centralised assessment the first time. The BSB’s assessment rules now allow
an unlimited number of sits within five years (though Bar course providers’ own
academic awards may have different rules). This approach allows students, over time,
to demonstrate they have met the required level of competence. From the data we
collected on former Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC), once resits were

21
 considered, over 83% of all students went on to pass the course and were called to the
Bar. There is no reason to think that this pattern will change with the new courses. The
centralised assessment results given in the Chair’s reports for the Winter 2020 and
Spring 2021 sits, therefore, are only a snapshot of two sittings for the first cohort and are
not an indication of success on the course. It was also an exceptional year for students
sitting exams in 2020 / 2021 due to the pandemic. There are many factors that may
contribute to variability in performance of students across Bar course providers. This is
something we are actively monitoring as more data from the new courses emerge. We
are satisfied that we now have sufficient oversight arrangements in place to identify and
resolve issues that are identified between providers in relation to quality and
consistency.
86. The Bar Council and the Inns also raised concerns about the high number of students
enrolling on a Bar training course compared to the limited number of places for
pupillage. There are, however, a number of factors that influence a person’s ability to
obtain a pupillage, which may or may not be linked to aptitude. We have also sought to
be transparent about the likelihood of getting pupillage. It is important that students are
able to make an informed decision. However, the value of the Bar training course is not
linked entirely to success in getting pupillage – students graduate with a masters-level
qualification and transferrable skills. Furthermore, the Legal Services Board’s guidance
on education and training sets out the outcomes for education and training
arrangements, one of which is that regulators place no inappropriate direct or indirect
restrictions on the numbers entering the profession. We, therefore, do not believe that
we should seek to place inappropriate limitations on the number of students enrolling on
Bar training courses.
87. Several stakeholders, including the Bar Council, the Inns and Pearson VUE believe that,
given the strong correlation between BCAT scores and the students’ results on Bar
training, BCAT results could be used in a more effective way to inform student decisions
on enrolment. As part of the consultation, we sought to explore this further by asking
students whether their BCAT score influenced their decision to enrol on a Bar training
course. Of the 36 respondents 18 who had sat the BCAT, only 2 respondents reported
that this influenced their decision, both stated that their score gave them confidence. As
noted above, we also heard from course providers that many candidates do not take the
BCAT until after they have been offered a place on a course. Following the consultation,
we considered, in addition withdrawing the BCAT, the following options:

• Retaining the BCAT as a predictive tool, rather than as a filter for aptitude, is
likely to be of less value to students because grading on the vocational
component has changed from the “Outstanding”, “Very Competent”,
“Competent”, “Fail” grading system to one which shows “Pass” or “Fail” for each
module. In the past, the BCAT score report provided candidates with information
about how well they were likely to perform on the BPTC based on their BCAT
score. However, our data shows that this has not, for the most part, influenced
candidate decisions to enroll on the BPTC. It has also not been a factor in
providers’ decision-making processes. Retaining the BCAT for this purpose may
be useful for some, but most are likely to see it as a continuing hurdle and an
additional expense. Therefore, we believe it would not be necessary or
proportionate to mandate the test for this purpose. Moreover, it would not be

18This is a combination of student survey respondents (28) and consultation respondents who had sat the BCAT
(8), which is a total of 36 respondents who had sat the BCAT.

22
 feasible to make the test voluntary given the practical limitations and the financial
and administrative costs which would be involved.

• Improving the BCAT’s effectiveness by increasing the pass score again or by

amending it to focus on those who pass in the lowest percentile groups. This
would risk greater equality impacts and efforts to encourage students from
diverse backgrounds, many of whom have in the past shown aptitude and are
now successful barristers. Such an approach could only be justified if there is
evidence that the providers’ admissions processes are insufficient to select
candidates appropriately.
88. The BCAT has previously been justified as a filter, based on the risk assessment at the
time it was introduced. In the absence of a filtering function, we do not consider the
predictive value alone to be a sufficiently strong reason for retaining the BCAT.
89. Whilst we do not want to conflate the issues of aptitude and English language
proficiency (which the BCAT was not designed to test), some respondents (for example,
from the Inns) have raised this as an area of continued concern. We discussed this with
providers. They believe this to be a historical issue and do not believe an aptitude test
such as the BCAT could filter for English proficiency. Instead, the providers believe that
the English language proficiency requirements filter out more students than the overall
number of students filtered out by the BCAT. It is a requirement of the Curriculum and
Assessment Strategy, which underpins the Authorisation Framework, that providers
ensure all students demonstrate English language proficiency to the equivalent level of
IELTS 7.5 or above in all sections of the IELTS test 19.
90. We now have a student liaison group, through which we intend to monitor any concerns
students have, including any issues relating to peers’ language proficiency. Should this
be an issue that returns, we are now better placed, through the Authorisation
Framework, to work with providers and make recommendations for improvement. We,
therefore, do not believe the BCAT should be retained to act as a proxy for a language
proficiency filter, because that was never what it was designed to do.
Equality Impact Assessment
91. One of our regulatory objectives is to promote an independent, strong, diverse, and
effective legal profession. To this end, we must promote equality and diversity, whilst
maintaining high standards within the profession.
92. We conducted an equality impact assessment (EIA) when the BCAT was introduced in
2013/14, again in 2016 when the pass score was raised and as part of this review.
93. Responses to our consultation highlighted adverse equality impacts from the BCAT.
Students from minority ethnic backgrounds are less likely to pass the BCAT and
students with certain disabilities may need adjustments. The cost of the BCAT may also
be seen as a deterrent for groups from lower socio-economic backgrounds. We
considered these issues previously when introducing the BCAT and when we raised the
pass mark. Whilst calling for the BCAT to be amended to be more effective,
respondents such as the Bar Council and Lincoln’s Inn believed that if there are adverse
impacts on race and ethnicity these should be investigated and addressed. The Bar
Council and Lincoln’s Inn have both argued that an aptitude test such as the BCAT is a

19 Although the language requirements are a universal requirement, the Authorisation Framework does not

require that any language tests must be taken. The decision to require a language test is up to the provider, in
accordance with their own policies.

23
 ‘context free’ [free of bias] test and therefore promotes equality and diversity. They
believe that the BCAT or a similar regulatory filter should be centrally administered to
prevent placing too much reliance on providers’ selective entry requirements. Our
research shows that the BCAT is not context-free [it is not free from bias]; increasing the
pass threshold for the BCAT would increase the disproportionate impact on certain
groups, and other approaches to amending the test are unlikely to have a significant
impact on overall pass rates. It should be noted that course providers, in addition to
meeting the requirements of our Authorisation Framework, are also under fair
recruitment obligations that are placed on them by the Office for Students. If there is
evidence of adverse impacts on student diversity as a result of admissions policies, we
can work with course providers to mitigate any diverse impacts and ensure that
admissions policies are aligned with expectations set out in the Authorisation
Framework (of which ‘accessibility’ is a key strand).
94. Our equality impact assessment has found that training provider’s reliance on prior
attainment, as one of the measures to filter for aptitude, could have an adverse equality
impact on those from lower socio-economic backgrounds as well as race and ethnicity,
where race and ethnicity intersects with lower socio-economic backgrounds. However,
course providers are mindful of this and have other mechanisms in place to mitigate
such impact – for example not solely relying on prior attainment and having interviews
and advocacy exercises. This balance of selective admissions processes and
accessibility is also something that they need to demonstrate in the authorisation
process to become an authorised training provider.
95. Our application to withdraw the BCAT takes account of the equality impact assessment
and the fact that disproportionate impacts on certain groups cannot be justified as a
proportionate means of achieving a ‘legitimate aim’ if that aim no longer exists (i.e. the
risks that were identified no longer persist).
Evaluation and monitoring
Evaluation
96. As mentioned in paragraph 8, we have an ongoing programme of evaluation for our FBT
reforms. The evaluation of implementation of the reforms (process evaluation) will be
completed by August 2022 and the evaluation of the extent to which the FBT
programme met its objectives (impact evaluation) is scheduled to be completed by
August 2023. The Authorisation Framework will be assessed as part of both these
evaluations, given it is an important regulatory tool for providing assurance that that
course providers’ recruitment and admissions processes continue to strike the
appropriate balance between the key principles of high standards (e.g. selective
admissions processes) and accessibility (e.g. potential adverse equality impacts).
Monitoring
97. Alongside our evaluation activities, we will revisit admissions policies and processes as
part of our rolling programme of supervising course providers (though these were
considered relatively recently as part of the AETO authorisation process).
98. Following the withdrawal of the BCAT we will monitor any changes in admissions (the
make-up of student cohorts) and any changes in student performance (course pass
rates) that follow as a result of the withdrawal of the BCAT. We will also be using a
newly formed student liaison group to monitor student views to understand if there are
issues with disruptions on the course, which are linked to student aptitude or language

24
 proficiency. Should there be concerns be relating to student aptitude, we will work with
course providers and make recommendations, under the Authorisation Framework, for
improvement.
Draft guidance or policies
99. In addition to the Authorisation Framework, the Curriculum and Assessment Strategy
and the Bar Qualification Manual, we will remove all references to on the BSB website
pages entitled Becoming a Barrister: an overview. Under the headline for the
vocational component, we propose to remove the reference to the BCAT as an entry
requirement, as shown in the table below.

Current web copy Proposed alterations

The vocational component covers a range
of subjects to ensure that you acquire the
specialist skills, knowledge of procedure
and evidence, attitudes and competence
to prepare you for becoming a barrister. It
is satisfied by completing a Bar training
course. In order to enrol on a Bar training
course, you must be fluent in English, be
a member of one of the Inns of Court,
and have passed the Bar Course
Aptitude Test.
The vocational component covers a
range of subjects to ensure that you
acquire the specialist skills, knowledge
of procedure and evidence, attitudes
and competence to prepare you for
becoming a barrister. It is satisfied by
completing a Bar training course. In
order to enrol on a Bar training course,
you must be fluent in English, and be a
member of one of the Inns of Court,
and have passed the Bar Course
Aptitude Test.

CONTACT DETAILS:
Christopher Young, Policy Manager
Email: cyoung@barstandardsboard.org.uk

25