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.
[For purposes of comparison the basic requirements of the London Society of Analytical Psychology are listed below:
A candidate may apply for training after 350 hours’ analysis covering a period of three years. This analysis continues during training.
Once training starts the candidate is required to analyse two patients provided by the C. G. Jung Clinic, to which payments are made. The patients are analysed under supervision. The supervisor is not the candidate's analyst. The candidate is required to attend supervision once a week.
Seminars are held twice a week for three terms of ten weeks, each year.
There has been no obligation to submit or read to the Society either a case report or a theoretical discussion.
After two years’ training the candidate may apply for membership of the Society and is accepted or rejected by a Professional Committee to whom the analyst, supervisor, and seminar leaders report.
Editor]
I HAVE read Dr Stone's paper with great interest, and as I also completed my training in 1961 and was accepted as a member of the London Society it is of value to compare not only our respective trainings but also our attitudes to our experiences. I should like to make a few comments concerning the effect of the training on me and what I feel to be the relation of supervision to the personal analysis of the trainee in the process of training. I was not as impressed as Stone with “no longer being a trainee”, for I expressly wanted to be an analyst. The statement “I wanted to be an analyst” implies that there is another activity in which I wished to become engaged besides the pursuance of my own development. Whereas there are no boundaries or limitations (theoretically) to one's own development, as soon