Summary

AS YOU DOUBTLESS HAVE GATHERED from the preceding papers, the essential orientation of the Committee on Psychoanalytic Education is to provide a service or services for the American Psychoanalytic Association. What has been done by COPE has been emphasized by Fleming, Arlow, Windholz, and myself. What may be done and perhaps should be done in the future is suggested by Pollock and Wallerstein. The American uses the findings of COPE to help candidates (e.g., better selection); or psychoanalysts (e.g., better knowledge of how to select); or the community (e.g., better analyses because selection of psychoanalysts has improved). Although the special domain of COPE is psychoanalytic education, it is clear that the impact of its conclusions can be widespread.

My belief is that there are four educational services that could be provided by our national association for our members and institutes: (1) research on educational topics; (2) education in educational matters: of members, institutes, or other units of the Association; (3) integration or coordination: to provide overall perspective of what goes on in psychoanalytic education in our Association and component parts so that, at the least, everyone is informed; and (4) standard setting and/or monitoring.

The first, research on educational topics, is what COPE has emphasized. Concentration on this service removes COPE from the pressures of time and action and, potentially at least, encourages more basic or more general or more profound conclusions.

There are critics of COPE, however, who assert that there has