For three years we had failed to start a class. Morale was dragging. Faculty had to pay dues to keep the Institute open and staffed. Then the Curriculum Committee, sparked by some members who were recent graduates, had an idea: if people would not commit to a full course of analytic training, maybe they would to a two-year program in psychotherapy. This program would differ from the Advanced Psychotherapy Seminars already offered by the Society in that it would (1) offer students advanced standing should they decide to apply for full analytic training; (2) place them in the same theory, development, and psychopathology courses as analytic candidates, thus acknowledging the importance of a psychotherapists understanding of these subjects; (3) require only fifty hours of psychotherapy supervision and not require an individual psychoanalysis, thus markedly diminishing the initial cost of training; (4) provide an advisor for each student, in the hope that a mentoring relationship might develop; and (5) present a Certificate of Completion at graduation and involve graduates in an ongoing way in the Denver Society.
We sent out announcements and very soon had to close the class at nine. The reason? In addition to our nine psychotherapy students, we were approached by a number of fine applicants for full analytic training, leading to the acceptance of twelve candidates—a social worker subsequently waived by CNMCT, five doctors of psychology, and six psychiatrists. Accustomed as we were to starting a class of three or four every year, at least before the three-year drought, a class of twenty-one seemed a veritable flood. We were excited, because we knew most of these candidates well. They were as fine a group as we could imagine, and frankly, though it was hard to explain this renaissance, we dared not ask too many questions about it. Our renewed vitality, the applicants' sense that we were enthusiastic about training them, and our exciting child analysis program all probably played a role; at least some of these people seemed influenced in their decision to apply by the quality of others being accepted.
Lacking sufficient faculty to divide the group, we were committed to experimenting with mixed classes, theory and development being taught as large lecture courses. Faculty unaccustomed to giving lectures had to prepare differently, and it was hard work. In the end, students and faculty agreed it had been a successful year, though the debate over mixing psychotherapy and psychoanalytic candidates continues.
Early in that experimental year (1992–1993) we decided not to start a new class the following year. Instead we would concentrate our energies on offering the best we could to the large class already enrolled. After extensive consultation with all parties, we have made changes and adjustments, including more time during which candidates and psychotherapy students are taught in separate classes. This seemed a necessary step as their educational goals became increasingly differentiated, and as they developed separate group processes. Some of the psychotherapy students have begun to express the wish to go on to full analytic training after next year; others are asking to continue their studies with us in some other form.
Not everyone at the Institute agrees with all the changes, but we are proud that dissenters feel increasingly able to speak out and that their ideas are welcomed and respected.