I'm a graduate of Metanoia and spent five years there, although that was about ten years ago. As someone with experience of different trainings (as a student, as prospective student and through professional trainings and CPD activities), I think it's never an easy choice which training to pursue.They all have positives and negatives and Metanoia is no different. With hindsight, I would have trained elsewhere, even more so today than when I made the decision. As an institution, they always seemed to be disorganised, bureaucratic like a large institution and unable to bring in and retain external talent. For many years, almost everyone who taught there was trained there too, which for obvious reasons makes for a myopic inward-looking learning environment. This contrasts to their diverse student population compared to many trainings, which I think is a huge plus and a good reason to train there.
They want to appear academically rigorous and try hard to conform to various academic standards, at least in terms of ticking boxes, but in my opinion there were few people there who were deeply knowledgable in an academic sense. They may have been good clinicians, but that’s difficult to assess except sometimes in the group ‘fishbowl’ exercises. Generally, most tutors were supportive, kind and wanted us to do well and grow. At one point, some of the older generation of tutors were still there and they seemed very knowledgeable as well as clinically experienced. Looking at their staff lists every year or so, it seems as though they change people frequently. I imagine this is reflective of the work environment, though I don’t know for certain the reasons for the high turnover.
I think they are very concerned about their reputation and in my view quite defensively so. As an institution they were founded by some bright, humanistically-oriented, progressive (and eccentric) South African psychologists at a time when psychoanalytic training was the norm and being gay was pathologised in the DSM. They were the underdog and I think this has led to some of the systemic defensive issues they have today.
To be fair, all the trainings will have their particular weaknesses and it’s not that Metanoia doesn’t provide a good enough training. It does, but it could be so much more. I found it to be neither academically rigorous nor experientially deep, at least not compared to some of the other trainings I know well. In part, it’s due to the weekend format that creates an environment where people come together for two days and then don’t see each other again until the following training weekend, compared to trainings that are one full day per week. The good part about this is that it makes training possible for a lot of people who otherwise could not take time off for courses that require one day per week - that means a much more diverse student population too. The negative, at least in my person experience, is that it’s less intense and with fewer training hours. Again, this is not to say that isn't intensive as a training, which also includes all the other dimensions that are required (therapy, supervision, training placement, reading, etc), but it affects the 'feel' of the course. Training to be a psychotherapist is a hard, and at times painful, process at so many different levels.
At the end of the day, any course is just one part of a training and there is huge scope to to shape your own learning, and the depth of your learning, by thoughtfully choosing clinical placements, supervisors, your own therapist and readings. Metanoia does not stop you in that regard and in my experience were generally quite open-minded about these choices.