Letters to the Editor

Dear Dr. Frosch:

The discussion concerning selection of candidates has shown clearly that one cannot predict before training which personality type will make a good analyst, and who should be rejected.

Neurotic traits and emotional difficulties are often considered an asset rather than a handicap. Which traits belong to the one or other category cannot be determined on scientific basis. Above all, the admission procedures take place before the candidate is analyzed. If one has any confidence in psychoanalysis it must be assumed that after the analysis important changes will have taken place. In the course of a successful analysis a candidate may even discover himself that this kind of work is not for him.

Since one does not know for what one is looking, and does not know what changes will take place in analysis, tests are of no help. When even such an embryonic science as graphology is sometimes summoned for the decision whether a candidate shall have a chance for the training he wishes to undergo, it is important to stress the limitations of the selectors in making a wise decision. The responsibility of the schools lies in the training program. The argument of the non-suitable candidate can be as easily misused as the argument of the non-cooperative patient.

We know a little about a candidate who applies for post-graduate training. He has gone through years of undergraduate and graduate training, which by itself is a selection to a certain degree. He is licensed to treat any sickness with any method in which he feels competent. When he decides that he will not be competent to practice psychoanalysis before he has undergone years of intensive and expensive specialist training he shows some qualification. Even the wish to be accredited and have professional standing can only be desirable from the professional standpoint. To establish in full clarity that there is no shortcut in reaching this goal must be one of the important points of the