Many of these arguments are opposites of the arguments against interscholastic sports, so which arguments are correct? The Educational Testing Service and College Board Study has stated that, "Participation in high school athletics and activities are a much better indicator of overall college performance that other yardsticks"" (iahsaa). Also the American College Testing Service (ACT) acknowledged that, "The one yardstick to predict success in later life (self satisfaction and participation in a variety of community activities two years after college) is achievement in school activities. Not useful as a predictor are high school or college grades, or high ACT scores"" (iahsaa). These are two well respected organizations in which both agree that interscholastic sports have a major impact on a students" success in later life. An example of a well respected organization that has proof of sports programs having a positive effect on students is the USA High School Academic Team. According to them, of the sixty students listed in the May 14, 1998, USA Today's All-USA High School Academic First, Second, and Third teams and the 51 students who earned honorable mention, seventy-five percent of them were involved in sports, music, and/or debate (NFHS). To become apart of this academic team is a huge honor and very tough academically. This is one instance that proves the first argument against interscholastic sport to be false. If seventy-five percent of the USA High School Academic Team was involved in some sort of school activity then the activity must not be taking away from the students focus on their educational goals. .
One might say that these students are the exception. In response to that, the Minnesota State High School League is quoted saying, "Student-athletes have a higher grade-point average than the average student and are absent from school less."" The Iowa High School Athletic Association says that, "Students who do not participate in sports average a 2.
