This short text participates in the debate triggered at the IPA (International Psychoanalytical Association) by a change in the number of sessions in the Eitingon model. From a French point of view, this change might seem anecdotic. But it has important repercussions at the clinical as well as at the political and institutional level. Each “forming model” has its own logic. Over and beyond the debate, the author notes the ideal that is always at work: believing that there exists a “right way” to form psychoanalysts. But thinking that there exists an ideal and definitive model of training runs contrary to what analytic training seeks to transmit, i.e. the fundamentally conflictual character of the psyche which manifests itself par excellence through its transference movements. Just like symptoms or dreams, the forming of the psychoanalyst has all the marks of a compromise formation.