The analyst embarking on training often harbors strong, unconscious convictions about the nature of cure. The sense of what is curative may have multiple derivations and is often closely related to unconscious motivations for entering the field. These curative fantasies often endure, dismantled by neither the analyst's own analysis nor by training. Instead, they persist and influence clinical choice. Maturation as an analyst therefore requires a self-supervisory grappling with the differences between what feels curative and publicly held theories of therapeutic action. Supervision should recognize the strength of the analyst's curative leanings and should foster the self-supervision requisite for the analyst to know and gradually transform them.