Review Guidelines
A good review helps future CA students make one of the most important decisions of their preparation. Here's how to write one.
The core principle
Write the review you wish had existed when you were choosing your faculty. Be honest, be specific, and be fair.
What makes a good review
Be specific
Instead of "great teacher", say "explains IFRS standards with real-world examples — makes the conceptual understanding strong but revision notes lack MCQ practice."
Include both sides
The best reviews have genuine pros AND cons. A review with only praise (or only complaints) is less useful and more likely to be flagged.
Write from your own experience
Only review faculties you have personally studied under. Don't write reviews based on what friends said.
Mention your context
Your experience as a first-attempt student may differ from a repeater. The form captures this — factor it into what you write.
Be fair to the faculty
If you had a bad experience, explain what specifically went wrong. Vague negativity isn't helpful and may be removed.
What gets removed
Profanity, personal attacks, or abusive language.
Defamatory statements — making serious accusations without specifics.
Promotional content — reviews that read like advertisements for a faculty or institute.
Fake reviews — submitting reviews for faculties you haven't studied under.
Competitor attacks — writing negative reviews as a smear campaign.
Revealing private information — personal details about the faculty not relevant to students.
Unverifiable factual allegations — claims of fraud, cheating, paper leaks, fake results, criminal conduct, or personal misconduct. We cannot verify these, so we cannot publish them. If you believe a law has been broken, report it to the appropriate authority — a review is not the place for it.
Comments on a faculty's personal life, character, appearance, religion, or anything beyond their teaching and course.
Examples
Good review
"Strong on conceptual clarity for SFM — the derivatives and options module in particular is excellent. Covers DT well but IDT feels rushed. Revision lectures are good but ICAI MCQ coverage is weak. Best suited for students who want deep understanding over rote learning. Notes are detailed but bulky. I'd recommend pairing with Icai MCQ module."
Specific, balanced, contextual, actionable.
Review that gets rejected
"Worst faculty ever. Complete waste of money. Don't take their classes."
No specifics, no context, no actionable information.
Opinions vs. allegations
"The teaching pace didn't work for me and I fell behind" is your experience — publishable.
"This faculty fakes their results" is a factual accusation neither you nor we can prove — not publishable, however strongly you feel it. Describe what you experienced, not what you suspect.
Moderation timeline
Reviews are manually reviewed, typically within 24 hours. Borderline reviews may take longer. You'll see a "pending approval" notice until your review goes live. Moderation is limited to guideline compliance — we never alter the meaning of what you wrote.