The proposed by-laws amendment that would abolish the requirement of certification for membership in our Association is the wrong remedy for an ailment that has long plagued us. The problem is the exclusion of a large number of graduates from full voting membership in The American. The proposed nostrum, delinking certification from membership, has the potential side effect of seriously draining our Association's vitality.
There are many reasons why recent graduates do not apply for certification. The Stein Committee Report identified an important one: the certification process is simply too daunting for many graduates. Anxiety about the written examination has been heightened by reports that part two, the oral exam, can be painful, leaving applicants stunned and bruised. These reports, even if exaggerated, have deterred potential applicants.
At the same time, there is a consensus within our membership that the certification process assures the continuing high standards of our Association. The Fellows of the Board and the Executive Councilors alike strongly support protecting the authority and autonomy of the Board that maintain these standards.
If delinkage were to occur, two problems would immediately arise. First, it would be difficult to uphold high standards. Second, the structural cohesion between the Board and the Council could be seriously weakened.
Some Fellows and Councilors have suggested imposing national standards for progression and graduation. They advocate assigning to the Committee on Institutes the job of enforcing these standards. This idea has serious problems. As we all know, it is not possible to demonstrate the existence of a psychoanalytic process except within a written or oral narrative. Numbers of analytic and supervisory hours, for example, cannot capture the essence of competent analytic work. What is necessary is the demonstration of the existence of an analytic process in which interpretation leads to insight and change. Further, the proposal that the Committee on Institutes be the watchdog for national standards not only is impractical, but would destroy the trust, respect, and sense of common purpose that exists between this Committee and our affiliate institutes. The Committee on Institutes has worked hard to define and establish itself as a national group that works with local colleagues to identify and jointly develop solutions for educational and administrative problems.
“… the proposal that the Committee on Institutes be the watchdog for national standards not only is impractical, but would destroy the trust, respect, and the sense of common purpose that exists between this Committee and our affiliate institutes.”
The Task Force on Amending Active Membership is clearly wrestling with the complex problem of enfranchising institute graduates, maintaining standards, and preserving the strength of our Association. It recognizes that if certification is delinked from membership, other linkages will have to be developed to support and buttress the educational functions of the Board. The preamble to the first draft of the Task Force report suggests establishing several new committees to create these linkages. Yet not one of these proposed new committees could do what the current Certification Committee does: ensure that each successful applicant has met national standards. What is the point of certification? Maintaining the current high standards of our Association. Equally important, the current certification process forges the connections between the Council and the Board, strengthening both. Sever any of these connections and the functional integrity of the Association is threatened.
We do not need a by-laws change. I believe the Council threw out the baby with the bath water in rejecting the Stein Committee's report. Our Association needs to be as vigorous as possible to face the challenges of the coming decade. We need a membership united in its commitment to psychoanalysis as a treatment modality and as a science. Separating certification from membership would undermine our ability to achieve these goals. We need a creditable and acceptable certification procedure that confirms competence. Our certification process is being revised and improved. I am convinced that we can have a certification process to which most, if not all, institute graduates will want to apply. I am convinced that we can have a process from which most applicants emerge certified. I believe current trends support these views.