For what it's worth, the only people I know at the university who take psychoanalytic discourse seriously as a kind of knowledge (as opposed to a cultural artifact) are in the humanities: Lacan is deployed for certain kinds of cultural criticism, and there are still a few octogenarian Jungians of the Joseph Campbell stripe who steadfastly refuse to retire. In addition to the generation gap, there seems to be a political divide at work too: those of us on the left tend to put Jung in the same category as Heidegger (creepy eternalist & at best a fellow-traveler on the fascist train), while our friends on the right find much to admire in his work and do not see much merit in such criticisms.
And to complicate all these generalizations, Walter Benjamin (hardly a Nazi sympathizer) read Jung carefully, and bits of Jung turn up in the Arcades Project.
I bring all this up to suggest that academic consumption of psychoanalysis and Jung in particular may differ from how he's read and the meaning that's made of his work elsewhere.
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727