Information systems researchers, like those in many other disciplines in the social sciences, have debated the value and appropriateness of using students as research subjects. This debate appears in several articles that have been published on the subject as well as in the review process. In this latter arena, however, the debate has become increasingly like a script —the actors (authors and reviewers) simply read their parts of the script; some avoid the underlying issues whereas others cursorily address generalizability without real consideration of those issues. As a result, despite the extent of debate, we seem no closer to a resolution. Authors who use student subjects rely on their scripted arguments to justify the use of student subjects and do not always consider whether those arguments are valid. But reviewers who oppose the use of student subjects are equally culpable. They, too, rely on scripted arguments to criticize work using student subjects, and do not always consider whether those arguments are salient to the particular study. By presenting and reviewing one version of this script in the context of theoretical discussions of generalizability, we hope to demonstrate its limitations so that we can move beyond these scripted arguments into a more meaningful discussion. To do this, we review empirical studies from the period 1990-2010 to examine the extent to which student subjects are being used in the field and to critically assess the discussions within the field about the use of student samples. We conclude by presenting recommendations for authors and reviewers, for determining whether the use of students is appropriate in a particular context, and for presenting and discussing work that uses student subjects.