Goldman Sachs AIMS

 - largely SLC-based (at least this used to be the case);

 - a back-/middle-office role that, while technically housed within AIMS, which is under GSAM / IMD (the latter two are different, but related, check the website), effectively places you in a grey area existing somewhere between the Federation (i.e., if they still call it that, these are the non-revenue earning divisions of the firm) and the remaining divisions that everyone at some point in their recruitment experience believes they want to be part of;

 - re: the Federation (Central Trading, Fund Accounting, Operations, Technology, Legal and Compliance, as you listed), the room of SAs laughed audibly during the company overview presentation during training when it was referred to as such;

 - the above points describes what I believe to be the position you posted about;

 - however, there can be attractive and more nuanced spots w/in AIMS (in my opinion, if you have investment-related aspirations w/in GS or externally [primary/manager selection, FoF, secondary, and perhaps direct [incl. co-] if within the E&F/FO/MFO/Pension/SWF/etc. after a bit of time or somewhere more traditional post-graduate school]), you will want to be in a seat actually conducting investment manager due diligence for the universe of prospective managers (asset classes are likely to be PE or RE/RA, and you will likely be a specialist in one; of course there are numerous sub-asset classes and industries under any asset class, but it might take some time to jump from buyout to growth equity to private credit for example [or to whatever focus area], or you could be covering timber funds for a year);

 - if the above managers are selected/recommended, they go on to become one on a list of many firm-recommended funds presented to PWM clients who keep their investable assets at GS [those working at GS in PWM/Sales are housed under IMD]), but it would take some time before seeing and/or being involved with the start-to-finish process of sourcing, monitoring, interacting, underwriting across all relevant areas, discussing in IC, presenting, etc. and it likely will never occur (it is possible to be placed in a risk management seat w/r/t manager diligence, and depending on the construct of that team/role, could become monotonous, but you will see and come to learn the relevant universe of managers/funds w/in the asset class(es) you are covering;

 - your experience w/ the more vanilla/back-office roles will provide you with a highly marketable skillset (signaling effect of and strong training received from GS) and valuable experience to take elsewhere, but it will, in many cases, provided you aren't well-networked or have inroads at the desirable family offices or similar, plus the ability to spin your prior role as closer to an investment- versus back-office role), be in those same types of roles, only at funds in the asset class you primarily covered, the list of institutions mentioned above, etc., with exceptions of course; 

 - do very well, some do have the opportunity to move to different divisions and 'more interesting roles,' but this is perhaps less common (more common would be shifting desks, e.g., from FI trade clearance, to manager onboarding [account creation and structuring, review and execution of legal [NDAs/PPMs/Sub Docs/Offering Materials], ODD, etc.], IBD compliance monitoring / reviewing decks prior to external distribution, etc.); 

 - again, there are attractive pockets, but it depends what you like/are good at/want to be good at/want to do, e.g., quantitative performance reporting, attribution, etc., which if you are quantitatively-inclined, is an attractive path leading to many institutional investors who would hire you / that you could work for (you could also pursue a master's and PhD after a few years at GS before re-entering the investment space, which is what you would need to be head of quantitative performance or similar at a desirable FO/MFO [random example]); 

 - it varies, so make sure you know exactly what you are interviewing for and avoid being sold on things that truly do not matter to you (if they do matter, great, but I sat through these presentations years ago and the narrative of the VP always struck me as more focused on the benefits outside of work, as opposed to satisfaction while actually in the office, or for that matter, what exactly you could or would be doing), e.g., the balanced lifestyle (not bad, but if you hate your job and have balance, you risk being miserably well-balanced, but it could also motivate you to use your ample spare time to work on spring boarding into an area actually of interest), access to skiing/hiking/the outdoors while being situated in a 'large' city, etc.; 

 - of note, it was always a VP running the presentation and they always seemed to have been sidelined after working in a more interesting area of the firm, or chose to sideline themselves to remain w/in the firm after they missed out on more than one promotion cycle, or did so due to a significant other relocating for their work / to be closer to family (maybe relevant, maybe not).