Various curricular debates spiced many SIGCSE meetings (as well as other CS educator symposia). For example, I had an ongoing “argument” with Niklaus Wirth regarding the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in computer science … and as to whether it was really a “discipline.” While I maintained it was, Niklaus saw it more as a facet of psychology rather than a field unto itself. I don’t think either of us was able to convince the other of our differing positions.

But our discussions, both formal and informal, were always lively and informative, and other colleagues were quick to offer their opinions! I certainly benefited from these discussions as it helped form my later research interests, particularly the role of AI in CS Education. Perhaps you have had a similar experience that led to sharpening your research focus and/or proposals.

Discussions such as these have been a mainstay of SIGCSE meetings. Many of them begin in formal settings such as a paper or panel session and then evolve into informal chats in lobbies, over drinks and/or dinner. I remember a particularly lively evening when Joe Weizenbaum elaborated on some of the major themes in his (then) recently published book, “Computer Power and Human Reason.” [ 7] A small group of us sat around a table in the lobby of a (now forgotten) hotel listening to Joe discuss his thoughts about computing, what computers could do, might do and definitely what they should not do. This was based not only on his famous program, ELIZA, but the reactions to it and the different ways it was perceived by society. I mention it since for me it underlines the importance of the informal exchanges and meetings one has at a SIGCSE symposium that simply add an extra dimension to the experience.

COMPUTER SCIENCE CONFERENCE

After our first technical symposium in Houston (1970) and our second at Washington University in St. Louis (1972), SIGCSE decided it would be beneficial to collaborate with another group of computer educators. Starting in 1973 the technical symposia occurred in conjunction with the Computer Science Conference (CSC). This conference focused on research and primarily consisted of a few invited speakers and numerous short abstracts of ongoing computer science research activities. It provided a forum for doctoral candidates to discuss their work and for departments to recruit, a primary feature of this event! Originally, several large universities and corporations sponsored it and ACM handled many of the organizing details.

CSC was a larger and more financially secure organization.

So, although SIGCSE had its own set of terrific volunteers to
organize and host the symposia, SIGCSE needed to cede to
the CSC organizers many of the decisions such as choice of lo-
we went from matte repro paper to computer typed process-
es in 1997. The magazine ACM Inroads began with the 2010

March issue. That was the point of bifurcation with the SIGCSE Bulletin continuing and ACM Inroads starting with Vol 1, No 1.

ACM Inroads followed the publication policy of ACM. However, I did develop some guidelines before 2010 for the SIGCSE Bulletin.” John later mentioned that ACM required the use of Quark software, which at the time was the professional software required by the publications division of ACM.

Even though communication modes have changed significantly with email, all forms of social media, and other assorted technology, the Bulletin remains (at least for me) a key way in which we share information with our members except now it is electronically rather than paper. In addition, ACM Inroads provides us a forum to broadly disseminate opinions, articles and research papers in computing education.

HOT TOPICS AND DEBATES

Yes! There even were programming “language wars” and “ heated discussions” on other topics in the early days of SIGCSE. For example, should one teach FORTRAN, ALGOL or, later, PASCAL as the programming language in the first course for computer science majors? Should machine or assembler language programming be included as a requirement for a computer science major?

However, even more strongly worded opinions surfaced in discussions regarding whether computer science should be strictly a graduate level offering—both at master and PhD levels—or whether it was robust enough as a discipline to be offered as an undergraduate major. Of course, we reached no definitive conclusions, but the opinions expressed were certainly eloquent and often vociferous. As time went on, these questions gave way as to how to best accommodate the increasing number of students who wanted degrees of all three types AND how best to provide the quality and quantity of professors and mentors to teach and guide them.

As noted above there were also early conversations regarding whether undergraduate computer science programs, IF developed, should follow some type of accreditation process. Some members felt we should develop a set of guidelines that would provide a minimum set of courses/topics required for a CS major. Others said that the discipline was not sufficiently mature to have agreement on what the minimum guidelines should be. The minutes of the SIGCSE meeting at FJCC in 1969 [ 3] already indicated that there was considerable interest in this topic though the only consensus was that accreditation in computer science “is not in the immediate future.”

… it underlines the
importance of the
informal exchanges and
meetings one has at
a SIGCSE symposium
that simply add
an extra dimension to
the experience.