Should students be used as experimental subjects in software engineering? Given that students are in many cases readily available and cheap it is no surprise that the vast majority of controlled experiments in software engineering use them. But they can be argued to constitute a convenience sample that may not represent the target population (typically "real" developers), especially in terms of experience and proficiency. This causes many researchers (and reviewers) to have reservations about the external validity of student-based experiments, and claim that students should not be used. Based on an extensive review of published works that have compared students to professionals, we find that picking on "students" is counterproductive for two main reasons. First, classifying experimental subjects by their status is merely a proxy for more important and meaningful classifications, such as classifying them according to their abilities, and effort should be invested in defining and using these more meaningful classifications. Second, in many cases using students is perfectly reasonable, and student subjects can be used to obtain reliable results and further the research goals. In particular, this appears to be the case when the study involves basic programming and comprehension skills, when tools or methodologies that do not require an extensive learning curve are being compared, and in the initial formative stages of large industrial research initiatives -- in other words, in many of the cases that are suitable for controlled experiments of limited scope.