It’s baffling to many that education reform has been so absent in the campaigns of US presidential candidates. In the 1 May issue of Nature (453, 28-30; 2008), Hal Salzman and Lindsay Lowell of the Urban Institute provide their take on US competitiveness in science and technology. Every time international testing of students on science and technology is done, pundits fret over what it means for the United States’ ability to compete. But while the mean scores place the United States as underachievers, no one seems to be paying attention to the long tails of distribution: the impressive number of high performing students and the equally impressive and dismaying number of low-performers. What do you think needs to be done? The time for discussion is ripe as the National Academies convened this week to refocus congressional attention on their clarion call for change, Rising above the Gathering Storm. Join our online forum at Nature Network and let us know whether you think we are training too many scientists.

In another Commentary in the same issue of the journal (Nature, 453, 31-32; 2008), Andrew Moore of the European Molecular Biology Organisation chides the European education system for not including more instruction on molecular evolution. Are students being shortchanged by not seeing the bioinformatics-based evidence supporting Darwin’s theory? Do you think molecular evolution should feature more extensively on the curriculum in high schools? Please join our discussion at Nature Network, which includes a lively response to Moore’s piece at End of the Peer* Show blog.

*apologies, this word should be “Pier”. Thank you to rpg (see comments) for pointing this out. Maxine.