ABSTRACT
People who go to candidates in training have some money, are willing to make a sacrifice, but cannot afford someone who has completed formal training. The initial acceptance as a candidate was only the beginning; one could be assigned to a “problem” status as well as a normal one, in which case the training analyst had special obligations about reporting to the local society on the progress of an analysis. The training analyst had to decide when a candidate was ready to take theoretical seminars, and also when clinical seminars were suitable. A training analyst’s power was checked by a sense of responsibility to others in the analytic community. The intensely personal element in training was partly checked by the increasing rules and regulations of the institute. Although some restraint on the judgment of individual training analysts was desirable, the result was often an excess of bureaucracy.
