I feel that name recognition is very important at a junior level. Even more so than at the senior level, by which time you'll hopefully have a career that speaks for itself. In general, compensation and reputation go hand-in-hand with one another, though, so this is not usually the tradeoff you'll have to make. Don't confuse "common household name" with brand equity from a career perspective.

What kind of Goldman/McKinsey guys are at #1? If these are former group heads from successful divisions in Asia, this is appealing. If these are former associates and VPs trying to make a name for themselves in Asia, I would pass. I would not take #2 unless you really want to be in the airline business. What kind of consulting work is involved in #3? What kind of firm is this (well-known strategy shop is ideal)?

I would go with #1 or #3. The tradeoff points you'll need to weigh that you haven't shared here are the reputability of the specific individuals at #1 vs. the firm value and type of work at #3.

Do the job that you feel the best/happiest about.

hehe, thanks swagon - will keep that in mind.

@re-ib-ny: Well, to put things in perspective, the country I am in does not have any of the mainstream BBs/MBBs/well-known banks or consulting firms. Once I got back, I was a tad distraught because I was comparing everything to some of the BBs etc that I was familiar with or had interned in. Most of the firms are local names.

Getting back to your question, #1 doesn't have any former divisional heads. People-wise, their experience seems more at the VP level than at the MD level. But a good few of them have their MBA from top American unis (think HBS, etc). However, the local market doesn't have too many people from such backgrounds and given the situation, I felt I might learn something from these guys. On the flipside, it's a start-up, not a brand name. Also, I'm not sure if there would be a steady stream of M&A/advisory activity in the local market, so these guys might end up diversifying into real-estate/asset mgmt as well.

3, as I mentioned before, is an off-shore arm of a small US consulting firm. Not an MBB or well-known boutique. The Asia office operates more along the lines of outsourcing and their work tends to be more market research/market assessment/due diligence (they technically call themselves a strategy consulting firm). But the clients are all US based, so client contact is gonna be minimal. Also, I suppose I might end up playing second fiddle to some my counter-aparts in the US.

Btw, i would have thought house-hold name and brand equity went hand in hand...? what's the difference?

In the long term, would I be at a disadvantage if I join a start-up? My plan was to work there for abt 2 yrs and then go off to do an MBA someplace good....

As an ex-airline person, I can tell you you do not want to go with #2

oh ok, why so? Details would be appreciated!