Rote-learning theory. Yes or No?

[more_vanilla]

Hey, I'd like to hear some opinions about rote-learning the theory in Accounting.
I know accounting is more of a practical than a theory based subject but there are still quite a few theory questions and i'm of the opinion that it is the theory questions which really distinguish the better students in the final exam.

I'm aware that rote-learning has negative connotations but am curious to know if anyone uses rote-learning and has had some success. 

My way of learning the theory is to first rote learn the material, and in the process of doing so, also try to understand the concepts. Being able to adjust the theory for different scenarios in practice questions (as opposed to regurgitating sample responses) is how i know I've learnt the material. But sometimes i don't quite get to the 'understanding' part and end up just regurgitating something i've rote-learned - i get the mark(s). Other times i learn and understand the concepts, yet still cannot answer a related theory question - i do not get the mark(s). As you can see, I'm receiving somewhat inconsistent results. 

How do/did you study the theory in accounting?

[marsbareater12]

I'm not quite sure how to answer the question with a simple "yes/no", but at the moment, I'm copying all the review questions from the textbook into a giant word document, answering those, and just doing as many practice questions as possible, whilst ensuring that I understand the concepts. Obviously you'll need to know definitions word for word, but tbh, just doing theory questions over and over and over again is working for me

[[email protected]]

Some rote learning is needed for the definitions and principles etc, but you cannot get away from the fact, that if you want full marks, You will need to integrate the case facts into your theory response.  If you just list the theory, you will get half marks

[p.taaa]

I found it very useful to rote-learn my theory, however this can make you see things very 'one-way' and you won't think about other views, but largely, it is beneficial to rote learn, i.e. definitions and what to write about
then when it comes to the case study/ scenarios, just throw in some relevant points to your answer and chop and change so you only write about relevant points

[kakar0t]

Some rote learning is needed for the definitions and principles etc, but you cannot get away from the fact, that if you want full marks, You will need to integrate the case facts into your theory response.  If you just list the theory, you will get half marks

Pretty much this. For example, for definitions I dot point it and then think about each dot point and cover it in my answer.

Assets:
* future economic benefits [ask, what future economic benefit?]
*by an entity, ask: is there an entity?
*result of past transactions or other past events, ask: what is the past transaction/event?