The logical implication, here, seems ridiculous as we've all pointed out... though I'm tempted to laugh because we're all bouncing off each other's test scores and grade point averages too. I don't think we're trying to establish some sort of vanity among the intelligent; in our own way, we all bring something to this forum -- a diversity of perspectives and backgrounds.
To answer 13.3's question:
SAT and ACT are two types of standardized tests used to test college aptitude in the United States. Colleges and universities often require taking at least one of the exams (while the SAT is the popular choice, Kentucky schools prefer the ACT -- go figure), and usually include a range of scores as part of the enrollment requirement.
GREs are one of many tests for graduate schools, which resemble the format and structure of the SAT.
SATs build a composite score from two separate scores: a Verbal section and a Math section. What I liked about the ACT was the greater testing range: you get four subscores (one in English, one in mathematics, one in reading comprehension, and one in science) that turn a composite. Max for SAT is 1600; max for ACT is 36. While high schools and colleges encourage high turnouts on both examinations, you'd be surprised at how low the mean scores are for both tests. I'm not the greatest standardized test taker (for some reason, I manage to get sick right before the damn thing), so knowing that mean scores aren't all that impressive, it's all good.
GPAs refer to "Grade Point Averages," which calculate according to a weighted scale your performance in school. High schools and colleges nationwide calculate GPAs on weighted scales of 4.0; some private schools stick to a 5.0 scale, with honors courses being weighed more in comparison to other classes (to offset inherent difficulty discrepancies). We get terms like cum laude (3.5/4.0 or better), magna cum laude (3.7/4.0 or better), and summa cum laude (3.9-4.0) to describe people with exceptionally high GPAs.
There you go.