Select Page

Psychoanalytic Education -The Illusion of a Future?:

A Conversation

Notes from NPAP Program & Continuing Education Events:

May 20, 2018
Psychoanalytic Education – The Illusion of a Future?: A Conversation

Moderator: Peter Zimmermann
Presenters: Carl Jacobs, Michael Garfinkle, Aleksandra Wagner, James Holmes, Gina Gold

This program is perfect for you if
  • You are a licensed mental health professional, but don’t feel completely ready to work with private clients
  • You already see private clients, but are unsatisfied with the methodology you were trained in
  • You are bored or frustrated with your institutional job and want to be more creative in your work
  • You crave the intimacy and impact of private practice work
  • You want to increase your skill set and confidence as a clinician
What can a year-long psychotherapy training give you?
PPLC’s Certificate Program Benefits
  • Certification
  • Continuing Education Credits (CEUs)
  • Well-curated psychodynamic courses and workshops taught by seasoned faculty
  • Exposure to a variety of psychotherapeutic traditions, including object relations, attachment theory, humanistic, and ego psychology
  • Clinical and practical tools to create, expand and sustain a thriving practice
  • Ongoing supervisory support from NPAP faculty
  • Evening and weekend classroom times
  • Distance-learning, live-stream option for those unable to attend class in person, including those in other New York counties and states
  • Confidence to be (or be a better) private practitioner
Why NPAP’s PPLC Program?
If you’re considering options for a one or two-year psychotherapy certificate program, NPAP’s PPLC program has features that you won’t find anywhere else:

VARIETY OF METHODOLOGIES: iIncluding ego psychology, self-psychology, object relations, contemporary Freudian, attachment theory, neuropsychoanalytic, and relational psychology.

DISTANCE-LEARNING OPTIONS: Each of our courses and workshops will be conducted live and simultaneously broadcast via webcam. If you live far from Manhattan, struggle with childcare, or even wake-up with a cold, you can still come to class!

COHORT PROGRAM: Each year there will be a group of students studying and learning with you. Although there is an option to take courses individually at your own pace, we believe in the strength of peer support and the NPAP community in helping you integrate the teachings from the courses.

INTERACTION WITH NPAP Faculty and Members: You will have access to highly accomplished instructors who have had successful private practices for decades. The NPAP community is renown for its openness and diversity.

AFFORDABILITY: At only $3600 USD per year, this program is an affordable option for those looking to create a practice that will reap rewards for years to come. Visit our Tuition page to learn more.

You can afford to learn the skills necessary to sustain long-term, beneficial relationships with your clients.

Creating a thriving practice is possible.

Join us in September, 2018!

LIMITED SPOTS AVAILABLE.
Email here to get more information – OR – talk to a faculty member to see if NPAP is right for you. Call (212) 924-7440.

Notes from NPAP Program & Continuing Education Events:

May 20, 2018
Psychoanalytic Education -The Illusion of a Future?: A Conversation

Moderator: Peter Zimmermann
Presenters: Carl Jacobs, Michael Garfinkle, Aleksandra Wagner, James Holmes, Gina Gold

Left to right: Dr. Peter Zimmerman, Dr. Carl Jacobs, Dr. Michael Garfinkle, Dr. Aleksandra Wagner, Dr. James Holmes, and Gina Gold LP

The first of several discussions on the Future of Psychoanalytic Education began with a panel comprised of Dr. Carl Jacobs, Dr. Michael Garfinkle, Dr. Aleksandra Wagner, Dr. James Holmes and advanced candidate and licensed psychoanalyst, Gina Gold. Dr. Peter Zimmermann moderated.

Dr. Zimmermann noted “significant ad hoc modifications” in the training program since our inception 70 years ago. We are not now entirely free to choose how to train candidates with the advent of licensure in New York State. Before licensure, our candidate was someone who had studied psychoanalysis or had been in an analysis. This person already loved the subject and we still welcome them at our Open Houses. However, there is a new kind of candidate who is interested in career change and seeks the license. It is up to us then to engage this person in the study of psychoanalysis so that they come to love it too. What kind of training program will make them want to come and stay? How do we help candidates find their voices amid proliferating theories? Dr. Zimmermann invited us to suspend our beliefs about training and open our minds to how it might be in the 21st century.

Dr. Aleksandra Wagner noted that she responded to Dr. Garfinkle’s idea of psychoanalytic work as the study of sentences without endings. The words “radically conservative” resonated with her too. She suggests that candidates go through the training as a structured cohort which she believes will strengthen the student and keep the faculty on its toes. At the 800 level, candidates should be offered teaching assistantships. Groups of students could request a class taught by someone they choose on a subject they choose. Psychoanalytic Review should reopen its editorial ranks to candidates. NPAP should make an open call to the New York analytic community for faculty. A willingness to host others is, in Dr. Wagner’s view, a cornerstone of education.

Dr. James Holmes serves on a committee of analysts devoted to establishing core competencies. This committee began with the question: “What does a psychoanalyst do?” The group aimed to locate psychoanalysis outside of social work, psychology and medicine. The group labored to define psychoanalysis at a level of abstraction that would afford some agreement among competing theories. At the same time, the group wanted a level of detail that would be unmistakably psychoanalytic. They reviewed the literature, surveyed what institutes were doing, compiled a list, asked for comments and came up with 40 core competencies across four areas. This effort seeks to examine psychoanalytic education from a different angle.

Dr. Zimmermann noted “significant ad hoc modifications” in the training program since our inception 70 years ago. We are not now entirely free to choose how to train candidates with the advent of licensure in New York State. Before licensure, our candidate was someone who had studied psychoanalysis or had been in an analysis. This person already loved the subject and we still welcome them at our Open Houses. However, there is a new kind of candidate who is interested in career change and seeks the license. It is up to us then to engage this person in the study of psychoanalysis so that they come to love it too. What kind of training program will make them want to come and stay? How do we help candidates find their voices amid proliferating theories? Dr. Zimmermann invited us to suspend our beliefs about training and open our minds to how it might be in the 21st century.

Dr. Jacobs began by offering his qualifications to speak: 20 years as a candidate, 20 years as an analyst, teacher and supervisor. While serving as Program Chair, Dr. Jacobs was invited to join a group of analysts studying different ways ofteaching Psychoanalysis. He became aware of an institute in Buenos Aires where Freud and Klein were taught at once. The candidates learned much and felt that teaching opposing views essential. NPAP’s way is to engage experts in one theoretical area and teach survey courses in isolation. This produces, in Dr. Jacobs view, an eclectic model of dubious value. In the current NPAP model, candidates receive the most difficult patients. These patients are not yet able to engage in an analysis. Yet, we teach analytic principles and analytic technique. Candidates are left to bridge the gap between analytic technique and therapeutic intervention with their supervisors or on heir own. Dr. Jacobs believes that the training should reflect the actual situation the candidate addresses instead of offering a “gold standard.” A course in how to move a patient toward an analytic treatment would be welcome. Open discussion of the need to retain the patient until the control is finished must be discussed. Psychotherapy could be taught first as the ground on which psychoanalysis rests.

Dr. Garfinkle encouraged us first to considerwhat was at stake in the questions posed about training today. MDs and PhDs do not need institutes to train any more. They can join study groups; they already have a license. Is there an added benefit to institute training? He suggests something radically conservative. Originally a candidate at New York Psychoanalytic, he was surprised to learn that NYP had a plan to dispense with reading Freud’s texts and instead, assign readings by secondary sources, analysts such as Greenacre and Arlow. He wrote a letter to the faculty to lodge a complaint and the change did not go forward. Dr.
Garfinkle said that candidates come with expectations, an unconscious fantasy of training and that this fantasy must not be pathologized, it must be met, explicated and plied with creativity and imagination.

Gina Gold said that through her coursework, supervision and analysis, she was able to develop her own idiom and to access an analytic chorus inside when faced with a challenging clinical moment. She believes that the point of training is to become one’s best analytic self. To grow as an analyst is to grow as a person. Candidates are necessarily vulnerable and subject to shame as they grapple with their limits and blind spots. Slowly an analyst comes to a place of humility, curiosity and not knowing. What then, is the just right environment for this kind of work? How do we create this?

For candidates, it means that risk-taking is encouraged. Present the case one is unsure about as opposed to the bright shiny patient. Ms. Gold encourages NPAP to make the 800 level compelling and desirable. More individual study could be encouraged. Reading groups could form around a topic. Candidates could develop syllabi together with instructors.
From the audience: The 800 level is rich and deep. The 700 level is the slog. One instructor noted that he was able to present the “gold standard” analytic principles in lecture and then modify it during discussion of clinical material. More support for clinicians just beginning with patients was sought.
Elizabeth Singer LP, MFA

Certificate Program Overview