You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
There is a concern about patterns of analytic practice and whether we may be failing to develop a future generation of training analysts. To inform this discussion it is important to note the documentation of current analytic immersion and the career development of recent graduates. In a study of faculty at the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research who graduated between 1987 and 2001 (Cherry et al. 2004), 67 of 102 graduates participated (66%). Certified and training analysts (22% [15/67] of the graduate group studied) had a mean of 3.6 analytic cases, compared with a mean of 1.0 for their noncertified, non-training analyst colleagues (78%, [52/67] of the graduate group studied). At Columbia, 25 of 67 of the analysts studied (37 %) had no four-times-weekly analytic cases.
In 2005 Pretsky replicated this cross-sectional study of analytic practice at the New Center for Psychoanalysis (NCP) in Los Angeles, formed by the merger of the Los Angeles Psychoanalytic Society and Institute and the Southern California Psychoanalytic Society / Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute/Society (Pretsky, Aizaga, and Cherry 2007). We used a subset of this data, those who graduated from analytic training between 1987 and 2001, in order to draw comparisons with the Columbia