The author explores formal aspects of psychoanalytic education relevan
t to the fostering or inhibiting of creativity in the work of candidat
es. He refers to thirty features of psychoanalytic institutes that inh
ibit candidates':creativity and, by implication, illustrate problems i
n psychoanalytic education that require our attention. These features
include systematic slowing clown of institutional progression of candi
dates, repetitive and unquestioning teaching of key papers by Freud, m
onolithic tendencies regarding theoretical approaches, isolation of ca
ndidates from the professional and scientific activities of the psycho
analytic society, accentuation of the hieratical relations among the p
sychoanalytic faculty, graduation rituals, discouragement of original
contributions by candidates, intellectual isolation of institutes, lac
k of full presentation of clinical work by senior members of the facul
ty, neglect of studies of controversies regarding psychoanalytic techn
ique, 'paranoiagenic' features of the relationship among faculty and r
egarding requirements for candidates, the 'convoy' system, neglect of
exploration of the scientific and cultural boundaries and applications
of psychoanalysis and the effects of institutional conflicts around t
he appointment of training analysts.