kerleone, regarding point 5. I think you are right... although I had written it differently, I agree that we should tolerate other opinions...
Although again, if she doesn't want to understand Ethnology more or less in a present academic way of thinking, should she get her degree then. Our studies (and within, this different thinking of changing and not dying cultures) are what differs us from others (not that we are any better) but that's simply the difference.
And do you think it has its legitimacy to use Ethnology studies as a short and easy way to get an academic degree just to earn more money in the tourism industry?
In my opinion that would be (is!!!) the downfall of Ethnology and the academic life in general!

Well, you're right, if it's the case that she only wants to get a degree quickly, she's always wrong at university, but especally in anthropology. I was trying to answer the question by trying to be optimistic and to explain what I think is *not* solely bad in the different problematic points of that student.

Looked at it as a whole case, and with a little estimating about this student and her point of view, I could come to a similiar conclusion as you ...

With "getting a degree quickly" I meant studying diligent and focussed, not skipping everything nonessential for the degree.

thank you very much for your comments. i'm surprised and happy that i started such a discussion...i think that my understanding of ethnology is simliars to yours, warauduati. it seems that demand is not very high, but that's only on surface. while i'm studying i had to reflect my own position, opinions, ...my whole way of living...and i tried (and still try) to do it as "objectively" as possible. for me that's it's a hard part and the "real" demand in the study: it takes away all the basis of your life, the faith in whatever you believe in (and i don't especially mean in "god" or "church" ect.). for example: does medcine "really" help me? or is it only me belive in the way of medcine i grew up with? if i try to explain friends, who have nothing to do with ethnology, that healing by an operation "works" because the patient believes in it, they don't understand at all. so i think what i learn makes me kind of "unsocial". and i think it's the hardest part in ethnology to explain non-ethnologist, what i'm doing and "translating". but the same time ethnology "takes away" my faith, believe, interpretaion of the world, it gives me back so much, because i can at least try to choose in what i believe in.....
and i want to add: yes, i also think that we should tolerate other opinions. but the problem is, when someone sais: we don't need ethnology as a subject in uni and in the extreme case: there's no more money for ethnology, he does not tolerate me! isn't that a problem?

I very much embrace this discussion -- it's proof of the fact that our students constitute a reasoning, critical, reflecting and self-conscious group of developing academics. And I second the arguments brought forth so far. Allow me to throw in my two cents by citing a consensus-paper of self-definition by the staff of our institute [originally written in German]:
""Ethnologie" (= social/cultural anthropology) is the descriptive, comparative, reflective and practical science of the cultural 'other'. Its goal is to create an understanding of dynamic cultural processes. For reasons stemming from its own history as a scientific discipline "Ethnologie" (formerly "Völkerkunde") once mainly was concerned with non-european societies which were thought of not forming 'states' and to lack writing. This 'traditional field' of the discipline was expanded to encompass all forms of coping with and shaping life, in short all human lifestyles. Therefore the perspective of modern "Ethnologie" isn't limited in time and space and especially encompasses aspects of the 'own', western-industrial "Lebenswelt", too. This circumstance teams up with critical self-reflection in respect to concepts, theories and methods -- "Ethnologie" becomes a critical instance of the own culture. In globalization's wake the demand for "Ethnologie" as a scientific discipline grows dramatically. The growing interest in "Ethnologie" by politics, economy and the public clearly shows its relevance." [Our recently completed alumni-study in addition shows that our absolvents indeed get jobs, and that there's a serious demand for social/cultural anthropologic know-how on the job-market.]
The student you are speaking of obviously hasn't grabbed any of the points stated in the above paragraph. And that indeed is a pity. The student can only be blamed for a part of this pity, the rest of the responsibility falls on us, the staff. The biggest mistake the particular student made was to choose to study a discipline she obviously isn't interested in -- if she were, she at least would know a bit of the shape of current "Ethnologie". She chose the subject for sheer materialistic pragmatism, which is quite short-sighted and never a good reason; and there are always paths to circumvent learning and understanding and substitute it by a strategy to cope with the examination-system. Our current system of teaching "Ethnologie" originally was designed to give the interested and maybe even enthusiastic student a maximum of possibility to design her/his way of studying according to her/his interests and special abilities. But this of course demands responsibility and discipline from the side of the student. Obviously the latter two qualities cannot always be taken for granted. As a consequence of sorts we already started to reshape our examination-system and made it stricter, as you may have noticed. But still this seems not to be enough. The new courses of studies BA and MA, which have to be introduced -- and which we already started to design -- give us the opportunity to close the loop- and leakholes, and to sort out certain candidates (like the one which's case started this discussion) much earlier (without sacrificing the possibility of individual and original development). This sorting out will be of benefit for all parties, as there's no use in spending years and years of one's youth by studying something one isn't interested in and never will understand.

way to go, zephyrin, couldn't have expressed it better, of course (as you can read above) ... ;-)

I might add though that responsibility in the end always is due to the student. The staff in Munich in general is doing a very good job (even the someones that are not thought so!). The only way of being able to understand what Ethnology Studies are about is to read, unfortunately you cannot force some to do so, even with a changed examination-system, which might do its part but not enough. I believe, although too young to know, that studies in Germany always had the advantage of studying liberately without pressure. This for sure only functions as long as you have students who believe in what they study and do so because of great interest - in a time in which financial matters by degree are of higher value, this perception of studying for self-elaboration has become a problem. You might reach certain things by restructuring the educational system but only by loosing values that we had and which shouldn't be lost.
The responsibility at the end lies by each and everyone of us. Maybe what we could to (all together - students and especially staff) is promoting more what Ethnology is really about and "what good it can do". Where the strenghts of these studies are... Maybe that whould help to open eyes to the subject?