Control cases conducted by candidates as part of their training are different in many ways from other analyses. The most important difference is that candidates must receive credit for cases in order to graduate. To study how training requirements influence candidates' analytic technique, a survey was conducted of all candidates at Columbia who were treating at least one control case. Sixty percent of respondents reported that the need to obtain credit had influenced their technique in at least one of their cases in one or more of the following areas: interpretation, fee setting, charging for missed sessions, scheduling of sessions, writing up the case, and presenting in supervision. Thus, training requirements, specifically the need to obtain credit for cases, affected the analytic technique of a majority of candidates surveyed. This effect is better conceptualized as a shared common experience of training than as a specific countertransference reaction in individual candidates.