Evaluating progress in training: character or competence?
Jung was mercurial in his attitudes to method and technique, leaving us a problematic legacy when it comes to evaluating the progress of trainees. Some would say that those of us involved with the assessment of candidates during their training continue to rely too heavily on intuition and subjective assessments. However good our admissions' procedures and the structures in place to review progress, the emotional and financial demands for trainees of embarking on an analytic training, the tendency for analytic institutes to remain opaque and slow to link up with the external world and the cliques within our profession make more objective assessments of progress and readiness to qualify at best haphazard and at worst inadequate. Some trainees have an immediate talent for analytic work; others develop their gifts more slowly; some never find this capacity. Working from a definition of analytic talent, the paper begins to map out a Jungian framework for assessing progress, emphasizing the significance of both character and competence and the developing relationship between them.
Wiener
Jan
J
D000328:Adult; D002605:Character; D006801:Humans; D007602:Jungian Theory; D008297:Male; D011361:Professional Competence; D011572:Psychoanalysis / Q000193:education*; D011575:Psychoanalytic Therapy / Q000379:methods*; D013663:Teaching / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards*; D016896:Treatment Outcome