@InProceedings{Welch09a,
  title =        "{C}oncurrency {F}irst (but we'd better get it right!)",
  author=        "Welch, Peter H.",
  editor=        "Welch, Peter H. and Roebbers,  Herman and Broenink,  Jan F. and Barnes,  Frederick R. M. and Ritson,  Carl G. and Sampson,  Adam T. and Stiles,  G. S. and Vinter,  Brian",
  pages =        "--",
  booktitle=     "{C}ommunicating {P}rocess {A}rchitectures 2009",
  isbn=          "978-1-60750-065-0",
  year=          "2009",
  month=         "nov",
  abstract=      "This talk considers how and when concurrency should be
     taught in an
undergraduate curriculum.  It is to provoke
     discussion, which may later
(if there is interest) become a
     theme for the Panel Session at the end
of the conference
     (Wednesday morning).  My presentation will focus on
what we
     are doing at Kent (where concurrency has been taught as a
     full
module for the past 23 years).  Our belief is that
     concurrency is
fundamental to most aspects of computer
     science (regardless of the push
arising from the onset of
     multicore processors).  It can and should be
taught at the
     beginning at the same time as and a necessary and
     natural
complement to sequential programming.  But the
     concurrency model being
taught better be right ... and
     threads-and-locks won't hack it!"
}