For the first time in the better part of a decade, the idea of making student loans "Income-Contingent" (often referred to as "ICR", which stands for Income-Contingent Repayment) is making a re-appearance on the Canadian policy scene. For those who have long favoured ICRs, this debate will be an opportunity to dust off their ideas and suggest why ICRs will increase access to post-secondary education. For those who oppose these policies, it will be an opportunity to rally the faithful and denounce those wishing to cripple access to education through the introduction of ICRs. This paper will demonstrate that most of the passion around ICRs, both for and against, is fundamentally misguided. The paper will begin by briefly examining what is meant by the term "Income-Contingent Loan" and examine the features of nine different programs internationally that have income-contingent features and categorize them according to their program features. It will then look at some of the policy choices associated with "hard" ICR programs that can make ICRs either very attractive or very unattractive. The following two sections will critically assess the common arguments made both for and against ICRs, and the final section will discuss the merits of introducing greater income-contingency in Canada. (Contains 17 footnotes and 1 table.) [This document was published by the Educational Policy Institute (EPI).]