Abstract
Psychoanalytic education in the United States faces multiple challenges as we enter the last decade of this century. (1) Changing interest and career path patterns for psychiatrists have resulted in fewer medical applications for psychoanalytic training. (2) Increased opportunities for full psychoanalytic training of nonphysicians have resulted in increased applications from highly skilled clinicians who often have more clinical experience than their medical colleagues. (3) Increased enrollment of women candidates has required rethinking of progression requirements, in light of their combined careers as professionals and mothers. (4) Independent institutes not accredited by the American Psychoanalytic Association compete for applicants while maintaining training standards that require less time and immersion in psychoanalytic theory and practice. (5) Economic factors increasingly influence the desirability of prolonged psychoanalytic training and the availability of suitable analysands for control analyses. (6) Evolution of theory and practice and the emergence of “new schools” of psychoanalytic thought have rendered the previous psychoanalytic landscape dominated by drive theory and ego psychology more multifaceted and less uniform. The American Psychoanalytic Association and its institutes attempt to understand these changing patterns and take them into consideration in the design and implementation of psychoanalytic training programs. Only one aspect of this complex situation will be described in this work, the current state of psychoanalytic training in the 28 institutes accredited by the American Psychoanalytic Association. Although the data available at this time leave unanswered many important questions about the philosophies that organize the content and emphases of the curriculum in different institutes, much has been learned about the overall structure of psychoanalytic training programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
