The Minster Centre - London

Harriet A.

I applied for the Minster Centre’s Foundation Course in Integrative Counselling and Psychotherapy earlier this year and had a negative experience.

I was interviewed by one of the course tutors and found their interview style was detached, uninterested and hostile.
I’m pleased to have had this experience from the outset and know that this learning environment wouldn’t be the right fit for me personally. However, what didn’t sit well with me was a large proportion of my interview was spent discussing ethnicity and the interviewer stated that demand for the diploma is high, and if the Minster Center can fill all places with ethnic minority students, the decision of who is awarded the diploma course places will be made solely on race.

Post interview I clarified this point with the Minster Centre’s Quality Manager, who stated that this was not the case – it is only when students are assessed as of equal potential, preference will be given to students from minority backgrounds or those with disabilities.

However, I had a similar negative experience when submitting a complaint and discussing my experience during the interview process. I was told my complaint couldn’t be accepted because it wasn’t submitted in the right timeframe, and there was a lack of understanding and compassion for the negative experience I had.

I wouldn’t normally write a negative review but thought it may be useful to share for potential future students.

Jamie E.

The open day was not a good experience.

They give off a very strong vibe that they base their approach mainly on intersectional identity politics, the idea that social categories (gender, race, sexuality, etc.) explain / determine the power relationships between individuals.

When talking about their approach, there was a strong vibe of ‘standpoint theory’ - the idea that a person's social identity determines their capacity to understand other people and the world.

I.e. if you’re a man you cannot easily understand the experience or situation of women, a white person cannot fully understand the experience of a black person, etc.

The foundational philosophy of these ideas is that social categories are real and important distinctions between groups of people, and that the grouping you ‘belong to’ is always relevant and cannot (and should not) be transcended in a professional relationship like therapy.

Identity politics is a cold and fragmenting way to view human beings. We may have differences and various experiences, but we also have a shared human experience, the human ability to empathise with what we individually have not experienced, the ability to advocate for others, and collective interests that unite us all.

Why not educate people to focus on what matters rather than how to categorise and divide people based on arbitrary identity categories?

The social category they seemed entirely disinterested in was class. Not a big surprise, given Minster Centre's main clientele.

Nina B.

Not impressed by either the counselor I was set up with nor the dreadful admin staff. Michelle and Rachel were both completely unhelpful and unresponsive about an issue when my counselor broke confidentiality for no permissible reason. They are entirely unprofessional and the counselor was very poorly trained. They entirely don’t seem to care which I suppose shouldn’t have surprised me but it was a great disappointment given all I was trying to do was seek help for a traumatic experience. I wouldn’t recommend this school for training or counseling based on my experience. No standards, no compassion.

Edu H.

This is my experience whilst training with the Minster Centre at Masters level; I hope that it may help future students. I came to the course as a trained therapist with many years of relevant graduate training, and thousands of hours or practice with a wide variety of different clients.

I agree with the client view expressed very bravely in another review (Ann Dubois) about the therapy process that she attended with the Minster Centre and I understand how it could have happened.

The way I experienced training with the Minster Centre, was that the client’s experience about their own therapy had very little space in supervision, or elsewhere. I paid for additional external supervision in order to feel supported and support my client. It was more about the way the Minster Centre perceived the therapist being “self-aware” about their internal process and what they bring to the therapy room, which whilst important, is of little overall importance if clients’ experiences and their own processes are not put at the centre of it all. The Minster Centre is Minster Centre focused; my experience and that of my client were completely ignored in favour of what the Minster Centre felt happened in my sessions with my client.

For this main reason, my experience with the centre was very negative, affecting my self-confidence and my practice. I must say, however, that despite all my difficulties with the centre, I was able to use my overall training and experience to hold a successful therapy process. My client felt that their therapy during my training with the Minster Centre had been very positive and they left feeling ready to face a new life with greater possibilities.

Despite a very successful client outcome, I failed the practice part of my course for reasons given in my feedback that were contrary to the results obtained with my client, and supervision and previous feedback. But in the Minster Centre’s opinion, these reasons were valid without argument. It is difficult to believe and assert yourself and speak up if you are made to feel that you are not good enough, that your thoughts and feelings as a practitioner are not valid.

Subjectivity is a key relational therapy concept and I very much agree with the need to be able to use it in our practice, as we were taught. However, as I argued at some point with the Minster centre, we must also be able to look at facts objectively, to open up to what is going on around us and affecting others, it comes from a very necessary adult part of us as therapists, otherwise we risk to lose ourselves in our own fantasies, prejudices and judgments and harm others in this process.

At its core, there was no coherence to the training process. Feedback was always late requiring constant chasing. When ultimately provided it was mutually contradictory to other feedback concerning the same subject matter. Aspects which were cleared in supervision, were suddenly a problem. Issues identified by one set of markers, were not issues in the eyes of other markers, and vice versa. It felt like I was led a merry dance trying to address the centre’s moving goalposts.

Important marking and grading were also always very late. I was informed by Admin that the financial balance owed to me, albeit not much, of my course would be returned to my bank account before I received the feedback and marking of my last Viva. This was not the best way to know that I have failed again. My failed grade arrived one and half month later, three months after the Viva, despite the feedback and marking was dated a week after I did the exam.

It felt like Minster Centre subjectivity was above reasoning and objectivity. If I dared to complain, I was being defensive and not self-aware, and seemingly the more reason to fail me. In my experience, the Minster Centre have no effective complaints procedure, and where it exists, they fail to comply either with its provisions or timelines.

Ann D.

I completed the 1 year therapy with a trainee therapist in November last year. I want to offer some feedback on my experience, in the hope that this could be of use to the institution- with regards to their training program- as well as to prospective patients (like I was)

Looking back, The trainee therapist I was assigned didn't have very strong questioning style: it felt a bit clumsy (using mainly/ only closed questions- and leading questions, such as an impulsive: 'Are you sure that you want to continue doing XYZ ?' rather than the better, more open version of that which could be, for instance: 'What do you think is the best course of action?'). That did not help with creating a rapport, and felt slightly patronising: as if I was forcibly being manoeuvred to a certain conclusion that were set out by the trainee therapist.

This made me feel that this was not really the kind of non-judgmental space I was looking for to allow me to express myself, like it wasn't really MY space, but rather a space in which I need to stay vigilant, to parry and/or try to accommodate my therapists frequent bouts of 'masked opinions' and attempts to manoeuvre me into whatever they believe is best for me.

So over all, I think communication technique/skills could be improved: with some basic tools such as: more repeating back/ playing back to me what they have heard me say (or what they think they heard me say): that would be a good start in making me feel heard and understood. Then, better questions (open questions and TED questions), then, taking more time to explore the issue, and around the issue, before jumping into advice offering mode, OR, maybe just refraining from jumping into advice offering mode/ personal opinions offering mode altogether.

It does strike me as odd that this kind of basic training doesn't seem to be part of the curriculum. Or if it is part of the curriculum already- then it is not efficiently taught.

David R.

I went to the Minster Centre's open day. They practise therapy as lifestyle accessory rather than vocation. Their values are sterile and uncaring, only showing passion in their desperation to appear professional via academic certification. The oppressive conventional atmosphere among trainee therapists is palpable - its really just a middle class ponzi scheme for exploiting vulnerable people.

Cathy O.

Excellent CPD event. The presenter was well informed, the training was inclusive, experiential and relevant. The venue was well-suited to its purpose.

Tim M.

With regards to training; deficiencies in leadership marred what promised to be a valuable experience. Disorganised at times, where expectations did not meet the capacity of this training institute to deliver a well-run course.