Many CA students feel that the CA exams are nothing but a memory game - the ICAI only tests how much storage capacity your brain has and how much you are able to retrieve in the exams. Let's analyze this premise a bit to find out the reality...
As we are very well aware, the ICAI syllabus has various theory subjects - Law, Audit, EIS, SM, Tax, etc. - which people try their best to memorize. Yes, I agree that there are some areas that have to be memorized. But can you label the entire course as a memory-based game?
If you have gone through the past papers, you would be very well aware that the introduction of the New Syllabus has tried to shift CA from being a theory-focused exam to a more application-oriented exam. The introduction of case studies in subjects like Law and Audit has been a massive step in this regard. Plus, you also have a paper solely on case studies in CA Final - the Elective paper. So in a way, you cannot call CA as a completely theory-focused course.
My next argument will challenge the very basis on which the subjects are taught to CA students in coaching classes. Or actually how the students study the CA subjects. What coaching classes do is to spoon-feed students with the curriculum. Why do they do so? Because the students like it that way. Most students today feel more comfortable in rattafication of everything, instead of understanding the concepts. Remember Praveen Sharma shouting at you - "yahan ratta nahin chalega...". But has anyone questioned him back - "Sir ratta kyun nahin chalega"?
This is where I dare to say, most students just do not know how to study for CA exams. They feel rattafying everything will make things absolutely smooth for them in the exams. One proud CA ranker went on to say that CA is easier than the 10th Board exams (I expect you can guess who s/he is). Really?
Ok, please don't believe me... I am a CA triple ranker myself, but please don't believe me. You do one thing - Ask anyone who has not been successful in the CA exams in the first attempt - there are close to 85% of such people every term. Ask them where they went wrong. Ask them that if they are done so much rattafication before the exams, why did they struggle to score the pass marks?
Trust me, rattafication does not help. It has never has, neither will it in the future as well. You might be able to clear all the exams, but will you be able to retain everything you have studied when you sit down to advise clients or your boss? How long will you be able to run along with just rattification and no understanding? It is better I leave this for you to answer.
Hmmm... This is serious. So what is the way out? Let's do an exercise...
Do you remember the first teacher of your life - someone who had taught you the English alphabets? Yes, your mother. She was the first teacher of your life. When she taught you A for Apple, B for ball... at that tender age of 2 years, what you did was just cram it all in. Your mind was not in a position to think and ask back - why is A for Apple and B for Ball? Over the years, you are continuously using those 26 letters taught first by your mother for communicating in English. Do you think you had to rattafy the alphabets? Yes, initially you had to put efforts to learn the entire series, how to read and write, etc. etc. Doesn't it all come naturally to you now? How?
Because you have now internalized the alphabets. So you no longer depend upon your memory to guide you which is A and which is B. Similar is the case with CA exams. You cannot expect to cram the entire volume of the syllabus before the exams and simply vomit everything on the day of the exam. No, it doesn't happen this way. You need to understand the concepts and internalize them. How will that happen? Unfortunately, there is no short cut to this. The best way I can think of is to prepare short summary of notes by yourself. Yes it is time-consuming. But can someone else give you a spoonful of tonic (read: notes) and say that you have internalized everything? I doubt.
In a lot of subjects like Tax and Law, you will find things very logical. Tell me why cash embezzlement by the cashier is allowed as an expense for the business under the head Profits and Gain from Business or Profession (PGBP)? There is some logic, right? What is the logic? Refer Section 37(1) (gosh, I still remember the sections!!). It mentions a few critieria as to what expenses are allowed as a deduction and what are not. Simple. Just keep that criteria in mind, who asked you to cram up the entire list of illustrations given in books?
I sincerely hope you could make some sense of the point I wanted to drive home. CA is definitely not all memory-based. I don't share my story with you because I am sure no one of you would believe it. But I had a major problem in rattifying things. I had no choice but to internalize things. And this is why I can still blabber out section numbers of Company Law or Direct Tax in my sleep, even after 4 years of studying them all (and of course, partially formatting my memory at IIMA).
Thanks for reading... I would be happy to take any questions, observations, comments or feedback you might have on this post. Please feel free to comment below, or get in touch via the social media handles of CA Exam Strategies.
Comments