What are ULaw students saying about teaching, materials and value?

Students consistently distinguish between strong materials and weaker delivery/administration. From dozens and dozens of data points (2024–2025), a clear pattern emerges: ULaw's manuals and MCQs are widely regarded as effective, while teaching quality and customer service are described as hit‑and‑miss.

• Materials quality: ULaw's 14‑volume manuals and large topic‑based question bank are praised for depth and coverage. Some self‑study candidates achieved first‑quintile results using only these resources.

• Teaching and organisation: Reports of "hit‑and‑miss" teaching and poor coordination are common. One student described paying "£14k to self‑teach" due to ineffective lectures.

• Service reliability: Accounts include unstaffed offices during posted hours and phone lines unable to answer basic queries, undermining confidence in support.

How effective are ULaw's study materials for SQE?

ULaw's materials are a relative strength, especially for SQE1. Multiple first‑hand accounts credit the manuals and question banks for exam success.

Practical limitations include the cost and availability of physical textbooks and mixed views on the number/difficulty of chapter‑end MCQs.

"University of Law (ULaw) Manuals – 4th Edition (14 of them, excluding Legal Services)... These resources are sufficient for any candidate planning to self‑study for the SQE1."

"ULaw did have lots of information that Revise SQE did not have. I think what helped me more was simply being able to read about the subjects from a different approach."

What limitations do students report with ULaw materials—and how do they fix them?

Students praise coverage but report practical shortcomings; fixes involve targeted supplementation and better feedback loops. Common complaints include few MCQs at chapter ends, expensive or scanned textbooks, and variability in question difficulty. Students respond by mixing providers (e.g., Revise SQE for alternative explanations), adding realistic question banks, and creating peer‑review or tutor‑led feedback for SQE2 written work.

Typical limitations and remedies:

• Limited end‑of‑chapter MCQs → add external MCQs at realistic difficulty

• Expensive/scan‑quality materials → secure newer prints or digital alternatives

• Topic depth uneven across books → cross‑read with Revise SQE/other texts

Can you balance ULaw SQE prep with full‑time work in 12–16 weeks?

Yes—multiple first‑hand accounts say it’s doable with disciplined planning, but intensity is high. Threads discussing 4‑month timelines and studying alongside full‑time roles highlight consistent schedules, weekend long blocks, and heavy MCQ exposure. Candidates with stronger foundations find this easier; others extend timelines or increase daily practice nearer the exam.

Practical tips from students:

• Lock a fixed weekly timetable and reserve weekend long sessions

• Front‑load content review; ramp MCQs and mixed mocks in the final month

• Track weak topics and revisit with targeted materials (e.g., Legal Services)

• Avoid burnout: shorter daily drills plus one deep‑work block works well

"People do full time SQE alongside full time work all the time. It's going to be hard and stressful but with good planning... it is possible."

"4 months full‑time is absolutely fine."

"It's a heavy workload... take 1 day a week to brush up on your black letter law... the course really doesn't cover it that much."

What administrative and service issues do students report at ULaw?

Course cancellations, weak customer service and inconsistent teaching are recurring themes. Students describe cancellations with minimal notice (including post‑relocation), empty offices during published hours, and phone support unable to resolve routine questions. Even satisfied passers‑by characterise teaching as inconsistent and organisation as poor. Several accounts are critical of the SQE2 component, citing unrealistic sample answers and limited feedback.

Common operational pain points:

• Unstaffed offices and slow responses

• Poor coordination between departments

• Minimal notice for significant changes

• Limited support when issues arise

"They cancelled my course with less than a month’s notice after I'd relocated and entered a tenancy agreement... they would not offer any help."

"The ULaw resources for SQE1... are good, but the teaching is hit‑and‑miss and the organisation is poor in my experience."

How much does ULaw SQE preparation actually cost?

Expect ~£20,000 for the LLM Legal Practice route, versus £500–1,000 for self‑study with ULaw materials. Students also report alumni discounts (~£500) and note extended costs can exceed £42,000 across multiple years of study. Exam fees (set by Kaplan) are additional to course costs.

"LLM Legal Practice: £14,700 (outside London) + exam fees = ~£20,000 total."

"5 years of ULaw later and more than £42k fees paid… professional is the last word I would use to describe them."

What is the value of ULaw’s LLM Legal Practice versus standalone SQE prep?

Value depends heavily on sponsorship, learning style and need for structure. Firm‑sponsored students tolerate higher fees; self‑funded candidates often question ROI when the same manuals and MCQs can be purchased for a fraction of the cost. Many successful outcomes come from self‑study plus targeted supplementation, without formal lectures.

Who benefits most from LLM routes:

• Learners needing fixed timetables and cohort structure

• Those with access to institutional support (e.g., sponsorship)

• Candidates wanting degree credentials alongside SQE prep

When standalone/self‑study wins:

• Cost sensitivity and willingness to self‑manage

• Desire for flexible pacing and mix‑and‑match resources

• Focus on exam‑standard practice over contact hours

Is self‑study with ULaw materials a better option?

For disciplined candidates, yes—often far more cost‑effective. Multiple accounts report success, including first‑quintile results, using ULaw books (often alongside other texts or question banks) without paying for the full course. The prevailing student question is whether lectures add sufficient value beyond the manuals and MCQs to justify £14k+ fees.

Advantages students cite:

• Same high‑quality materials without course fees

• Flexible schedule and fewer administrative risks

• Ability to mix resources for broader coverage

Trade‑offs include reduced structure, fewer peer interactions and greater responsibility for planning and feedback.

"Why don't you self‑study? I did and passed first quintile. Just buy SQERevise and ULAW books."

"I used the ULaw and Revise SQE book bundles to learn content supplemented with Revision Killer and Devil's Advocate."

How should you supplement ULaw with Revise SQE, QLTS and other question banks?

Blend content depth with realistic practice to cover blind spots. Students often use Revise SQE as a primary narrative with ULaw books for added depth in select subjects, QLTS / Law Drills for exam‑level difficulty, and targeted tools to strengthen Legal Services and Ethics.

Suggested supplementation mix:

• Revise SQE: concise explanations; broader end‑of‑chapter MCQs

• ULaw: deeper chapters for tricky areas (e.g., Dispute, Crime, Property)

• QLTS/other banks: calibrate to exam difficulty and timing pressure

• Targeted Ethics/Legal Services resources: scenario‑based practice

How do ULaw students use Law Drills to succeed?

Students pair ULaw's depth with exam‑standard, mobile‑friendly practice. Reports of content depth but variable teaching push many to add realistic MCQs and targeted coverage:

• Use mobile practice to study on commutes and weekends when university systems may be unavailable.

• Calibrate difficulty to exam standards to avoid over‑ or under‑confidence from provider‑specific mocks.

• Strengthen high‑weight areas (e.g., Legal Services, Ethics scenarios within practice areas) and track weak topics.

The result students seek: keep ULaw's materials strength while filling feedback, difficulty and access gaps.

Key takeaways

• Materials strength: Manuals and question banks are widely effective; some pass at first‑quintile via self‑study.

• Delivery gap: Teaching quality and organisation are inconsistent; service reliability is a recurring complaint.

• Performance bands: Typical mocks at 58–65% or 70–80%+ for stronger candidates; mini‑mock variability adds anxiety.

• Costs: LLM route ~£20k; self‑study with ULaw books ~£500–1,000; long‑term costs can exceed £42k.

• Best‑fit: ULaw suits those who want depth and can manage around admin/teaching variability; self‑motivated students may prefer self‑study plus targeted practice.