Problems of Psycho-Analytic Training1

It is remarkable that the four speakers concentrate mainly on two fields of training activities: (1) the Selection of Candidates, and (2) the Problems of Training-Analysis.

The other part of the programme, the theoretical and practical teaching in lectures and seminars and the supervision of treatments, are left out of consideration. This fact demonstrates that there is general agreement as to the overwhelming importance of the candidate's personal analysis in the training procedure.

Though I share this opinion completely, I think that we should not altogether neglect the value of an efficiently composed programme of courses on theory. Instead of giving positive suggestions, which would take up too much time, I want to mention only two difficulties which might impair the efficiency of the theoretical teaching; one on the part of the students, the second on the part of the teachers.

Many students join the courses expecting that they will be able to learn the whole of psycho-analytic theory during this teaching. I think it is necessary to fight this misconception by stressing over and over again the fact that courses are only able to stimulate the candidate to serious study of the analytic literature.

Some teachers tend from the very beginning to present to the students criticisms and deviations of the analytic theory. Such teachers seem to be afraid of being called 'orthodox Freudians'. They overlook the fact that the students usually become confused by this teaching. The Dutch Training Institute therefore decided to present to the students in the first two years the development of Freud's theory, the basic concepts and writings. Only in the last year are differences and deviations brought forward and broadly discussed.

Supervision, too, is an important part of training, not only to teach technique, but also as a means of judging the candidate's capacities and progress. I cannot go into further details here.

Before entering into the problems of the training analys