>the smart kid's parent is black
>the okay kid's parent is gay (blue hair)
>the so-so kid's parent is a beta male engineer
>the idiot kid's parent is a normal middle class white mom
kek, dat SJW reversal. In real life the scale literally looks like the exact opposite of that.
Anyway,
>Is it better to study in a shit place and have good GPA or to study in a good place and have shit/average GPA.
Depends on your goals, but having studied at good places with both good GPA and shit GPA, and also having known people who had good/bad GPA from shit places, I can tell you that you're better off in a shit place. Classes in shit places are easy so might as well have a decent GPA (maybe 3-ish) but even at shitty places but otherwise striving for best GPA is pointless unless you get concrete benefits (like a scholarship for being above 3.50).
There are two reasons to strive for good GPA at a good place: Either you want to be a rock star in your field (eg. CEO of multinational company, director at Bank of America, surgeon general of USA, google project manager, lead engineer at boeing, etc) or you want to go to grad school (at several stages of academic careers the vast majority of people get kicked out and only like the top 5% get to progress to the next stage, like PhD, postdoc, professorship, tenure, etc).
Grad school is a shitty place to be so I don't recommend it, but if you really want to, you're better off being at an ez-pz college, racking up a 4.0, and spending your free time (you should have lots since classes are so easy you hardly ever have to study) volunteering at a lab and getting published. Getting published looks very good on your resume, and it's a lot easier to convince a committee that
>I'm totally smart guys! Trust me, the 4.0 GPA and being valedictorian isn't just because because my shitty no-name uni has no standards!
than
>I'm totally smart guys! I may have gotten a 2.3 GPA, but that's just because my uni is really hard, honest!
Even though these two are equally likely, professors are biased strongly in favor of the first. Part of the reason is that during admissions, they're not looking for "which candidate is most brilliant", but "what fuck ups can we find that will be a good excuse to eliminate some applicants". "His GPA is very low" is a much better reason to trash someone than "we haven't heard of his college so it may or may not have lax standards".
Besides, all the top institutions have massive grade inflation, so a lot of professors also have a bias there and assume that classes everywhere are just as easy.
Hardly anybody cares about the name of your undergrad unless it's Harvard, MIT, Cambridge etc.
As for being a rockstar, good grades can be necessary/helpful, but as I'm sure you can guess they're hardly enough by themselves. Basically you need serious connections, be the right social class (upper-middle and above) and to get the right kind of upbringing from your parents.
>All Unis in my country are shit(nothing in top 250) and mostly unknown to westerners.
Then it doesn't matter if you go to the worst uni in your country or the best, since both will look equally irrelevant to where you want to go. You have two options: Either go to the best one where you will 99% finish with 3.9+, or go to the shittiest one and coast. Even if you went to Harvard you'd still have to learn shit on the job no matter where you went (grad school/industry) so you don't lose much. Go to a shit school and get good grades, positive recs (also easier since small-time profs are easier to impress).
>My goal is to go to Europe for Graduate/Master's degree(Engineering).
What kind of Eng? Why not just get a Bachelor's and get a job? It'll pay a lot more, and it's much easier.