Well fed up right now. Yesterday had an interview for full-time employment at BBCM where I am currently contracting. This morning was told had not been successful, reason being I didn't show enough competencies that were being looked for. By competencies they are not referring to technical skills (job is IT based) but more "soft" skills of leadership, planning, communicating, ITIL (an IT Service Management programme) and such like. I thought I had demonstrated them. Indeed was told there was no problem or concern with my technical skills. The other candidate was also unsuccessful. The object of the job was to get some income stability whilst I continue the counselling training. Guess this has given me more motivation to study harder, preparing as well as possible to become a counsellor. Was a bit upset when was told the news, but soon got over it. It helped when many of the IT staff at BBCM were very also surprised the job was not offered.

Suppose from a counselling perspective should ask myself, why was I feeling fed up and upset? Disappointment? But on another level feel let down by the process. I've been contracting at BBCM for two years at the end of the month. Surely they should know by now whether I'm capable of doing the job, and if they didn't think I was why bother interviewing me. To reject someone on the basis of an hour interview compared to two years of work which has always been said was good does not make sense to me. Too much theory being used instead of common-sense?

Back to counselling - tomorrow we have a day workshop on family structure. Should get our essays back. We've two Tuesday evening classes since start on the new term. The first week was a bit - was going to hostile toward the presenter, but hostile is too strong a word, more a bit negative toward the material she presented on psycho-dynamic theory. At one point I questioned her on the authority of the material, not on whether it was authorship was genuine, more on the way most psycho-dynamic material seems presented as fact. It is of course theory, some of which is supported through research. At the time we were talking about false memories, how they can be given to people. She asked if I had any, to which I replied: "Not yet." This caused amusement to others in the class.

Person-centred theory is always open to further developments. Carl Rogers stated in many of his papers that what he was proposing was not the end but just the beginning of a theory, stressing it should be changed, developed or expanded as new information was gained through research undertaken. That openness never seems to be very prevalent in psycho-dynamic theory. There are of course developments in psycho-dynamic theory, but each change seems to be presented as almost fact.

Maybe it is open and I just need to have a more open mind :)

I felt greater involvement in the second Tuesday class, partly as others also seemed to challenge the authority of psycho-dynamic theory. The presenter did admit that it was all theory and not fact. Once we had that established felt a lot comfortable with the remainder of the evening.

Am I too dogmatic in my own approach? Surely openness is the way forward? Within counselling I do not feel we can ever have one theory say "This is the way it is". One theory may suit better one counsellor and another theory may suit a different counsellor better. The same goes for a client. For myself, presently Person-Centred theory fits me better than anything else I've so far studied. Maybe that will change in the future? As yet not sure if that will happen, but like to think I'm open to such a change.