5 reasons why i feel , the law paper was unfair

I have been here a long time and attempting final exams since you may have been in CPT,so I think I can answer some your questions.

PM can never be your only source of knowledge for exams,it is just a supplement. With changed Companies Act, ICAI can frame new questions any time it wants and they may not be available in PM. If you had read Munish Bhandari's Handbook religiously,you can score 50+ in law easily,and thats what we want,isn't it?

I know some qquestions were lengthybut paper was manageable upto atleast 85 marks and law is a subject where,as you said,you know the provision,you can score atleast 2/3rd easily. 

Following has been my experience with this paper,I know 40pc section wise,30 pc I have slight Idea what it might be and rest 30pc I have no idea where it came from. I manage to get 48- 55 everytime in my 10 attempts but never an exemption nor I fail. And I never read PM for corporate law,because Munish bhandari's handbook is sufficient enough for that and I know I cannot go much higher than these marks. Believe me I have tried a lot,I read numerous other books but I get stuck in marks range only.

Don't lose hope,start studying and dont rely only on PM ever for any subject. PM is a lottery,it may or may not strike.

Originally posted by : Joey Tribbiani
	PM can never be your only source of knowledge for exams,it is just a supplement. With changed Companies Act, ICAI can frame new questions any time it wants and they may not be available in PM. If you had read Munish Bhandari's Handbook religiously,you can score 50+ in law easily,and thats what we want,isn't it?   And I never read PM for corporate law,because Munish bhandari's handbook is sufficient enough for that and I know I cannot go much higher than these marks. Believe me I have tried a lot,I read numerous other books but I get stuck in marks range only

Dear Joey T.

I am not upset merely bcoz  of the fact that only 15% of the questions were from PM

Now you yourself said that we must refer to Munish Bhandari's Book and all

Whereas if you see most of institute's study recommendations ,they always claim that their material are Self-sufficient and that there is no need to refer any other books.

Atleast they must stop making such tall claims -Bcoz when our parents and friends see that , they feel that there is some shortcoming in our preparation and thats why we are not passing ,

This really hurts even more

What i am saying is that even if they don't ask questions from the materials provided by them

they must atleast give adequate time for answering those questions

Which was not the case yesterday

They just clipped our wings by asking twisted questions coupled with lengthy paper which i feel was inappropriate 

And above that ,now if they don't compensate that by rewarding appropriate marks , then it would be really sad 

I appreciate the fact that you have scored 55+ in 10 attempts

Even i am from the old pcc batch , even i have had to register

I guess you might be knowing the pain of studying both the Acts well(The Companies Act 1956 & 2013)

and yet not securing an exemption

Also thanks for motivating at the end by asking to not lose hope

Originally posted by : Studentsca
	Point 1of your post is absurd. Wether they ask from PM or not is upto them. Whether they ask for 15 marks or 50 marks is also upto them. Just because you studied PM does not mean you are automatically entitled to get a pre defined number of marks. This is not the first time time this has happened and this will not be the last time also.

Dear Studentsca,

I intented to throw light on the plight of students due to the cumulative effect of those '5 factors' (taken together)

which i feel was harsh

i just hope that they ask their concience whether the intention of the paper was 

a) to check the knowledge level of students

or

b) to not let them score adequtely

If it is 'a' then i appreciate them ,

but in that case the students must be appropriately rewarded for their answers (which in my opinion and as per my past experiences, has not been the case)

Im sure God is watching

CA is just a part of life

And im sure we will have to face the consequences of our deeds , some way or the other

All the Best to all students

Your efforts will be rewarded by God if not today , then some other day

Just stay Positive and do good to others, After all ,none of us are here to stay permanently on earth

As long as you live , just keep doing good Karma 

Originally posted by : Maithili
	Originally posted by : Joey Tribbiani PM can never be your only source of knowledge for exams,it is just a supplement. With changed Companies Act, ICAI can frame new questions any time it wants and they may not be available in PM. If you had read Munish Bhandari's Handbook religiously,you can score 50+ in law easily,and thats what we want,isn't it?   And I never read PM for corporate law,because Munish bhandari's handbook is sufficient enough for that and I know I cannot go much higher than these marks. Believe me I have tried a lot,I read numerous other books but I get stuck in marks range only       Dear Joey T. I am not upset merely bcoz  of the fact that only 15% of the questions were from PM Now you yourself said that we must refer to Munish Bhandari's Book and all Whereas if you see most of institute's study recommendations ,they always claim that their material are Self-sufficient and that there is no need to refer any other books. Atleast they must stop making such tall claims -Bcoz when our parents and friends see that , they feel that there is some shortcoming in our preparation and thats why we are not passing , This really hurts even more What i am saying is that even if they don't ask questions from the materials provided by them they must atleast give adequate time for answering those questions Which was not the case yesterday They just clipped our wings by asking twisted questions coupled with lengthy paper which i feel was inappropriate  And above that ,now if they don't compensate that by rewarding appropriate marks , then it would be really sad  I appreciate the fact that you have scored 55+ in 10 attempts Even i am from the old pcc batch , even i have had to register I guess you might be knowing the pain of studying both the Acts well(The Companies Act 1956 & 2013) and yet not securing an exemption   Also thanks for motivating at the end by asking to not lose hope

If you are an old sport like me,you should have stopped believing because by their material they mean,Modules+PM+RTP+Supplementary paper= 1 year only for Law.

And believe me,if I can score 50 plus,anyone can,law is easiest among all theory papers in CA final.

Dear #Studentsca

Thanks for the feedback, Lets hope we clear this time

And Yes i have cleared group 2 (in Nov 2014) 

i had started appeaing from May2012 onwards by appearing for both groups

Then realised that Scoring in Group I was difficult as it had 2 Theory papers (which means more room for moderation)

So i concentrated only on Group 2 and cleared it

(I would  like to admit that the reason for my failure is not merely tough papers being set,

but also there  may be shortcomings in my preparations as well as far as practical subjects are concerned

Therefore i always try to cover up with Law - which has been my forte and unfortunately , in my opinion , the marking system adopted for Theory papers is not upto the mark)

Dear #Studentsca

Thanks for the support

But my other papers haven't gone that good (expecting to get around 40-50) in all other 3 papers

FR again had the shock factor in Q.1 itself as they had asked to Write anwers as per Ind AS (Students as well as professionals, i guess are yet to fully get accustomed to such Q.s)

and Q.2 relating was to be solved as per Ind  AS 28 (which now im being told was an error in the paper and had to be answered as per Ind AS 27 )

I did not attempt that Q. thinking it was something out of my knowledge

However i don't think i am competent enough comment on the FR paper(as in case of Law)

Therefore no complaints on that . I will accept the FR result without any qualms.

Because it (FR results)will be a result of my own actions & efforts.

But in the same breath i also hope that the Law Paper too will be a result of my own action & efforts.

Originally posted by : Joey Tribbiani
	If you are an old sport like me,you should have stopped believing because by their material they mean,Modules+PM+RTP+Supplementary paper= 1 year only for Law. And believe me,if I can score 50 plus,anyone can,law is easiest among all theory papers in CA final.

True #Joey

I just did that Modules+PM+RTP+Supplementary paper and thats why i am confident about scoring 50+ even in such a paper.

But what hurts is that, inspite of studying the subject so well ,i am still striving for that Elusive Exemption in Law

(which i honestly and impartially believe that i deserve)

If i am complaining about them , then i think it is my duty to also admit the good deeds by them

I would like to inform you that in May-16  i got 58 in Law (though my paper had read the score 52 only , I guess the institute had awarded 6mrks as grace. So i must admit that they sometimes do justice to students by awarding grace marks as well.I can't deny appreciating that fact.

Hopefully even this time they do something like that ,otherwise we will all ,be left in lurch.

Alternatively i feel that Instead of giving grace marks, they must adopt giving 'Full marks for a perfect answer' and not just deduct 1 mark per Q. on a fixed basis which they do.They must deduct marks only if they feel that there is something missing in the answer and must not deduct 1 mark per Q , per se

I have found that the IDT Papers are corrected in that way.Marks are deducted only if something is missing and not just per se.

In that case , i feel justice will be served to students like us who have put whole lot of efforts into getting command over this paper and writing Quality answers rather than being Denied Exemption due to factors which are beyond the control of students.

All the Best

No need to reply to this post if your Group II is pending .Plz focus on that as for now.