Which of these 2 offers would you go with?

It's funny because VC jobs are harder to get than banking, but the transition from banking to VC is a lot easier than VC to banking. Because of that, I would do banking. Especially because the pay and structure of Barclays ibd nyc sa is clear-cut.

You haven't mentioned enough about the VC fund to make a meaningful comparison. That being said, the Barclays Nat Res group is the ex-Lehman group and were tops in the category. No bias of course, but I would go with the Lehman guys.

Take the VC job if you know that's what you want to do long term. If you're not sure and want to keep options open, take Barclays.

Does the VC job offer FT?

Yes, a senior guy there that I have meaningful connections to said this VC fund will hire me full-time when I graduate college if I do a good job. Also, I go to a target school along the lines of the level just below the level Wharton, Harvard, Princeton (think Columbia, Dartmouth, UChicago, Duke, Cornell, etc). It seems like many of the seniors at my school don't have a hard time either lateraling among bulge brackets that recruit at our school or can get hired full-time fairly easily with buy-side experience. What do you all think?

If what you're saying is true (easy to do IB after junior buy side job), then you have some margin of safety. VC is in the SE is what you want to do... and you have been afforded with an opportunity to do so. If you find out VC is not for you, then you can pursue IB FT (sorry for all the abbreviations).

Barclays is likely the better opportunity here. You will learn more, and make better connections, by starting in a strong group like Nat Res, which has a proven track record of excellent placement.

I see no reason why you could not later pursue VC in the south east (especially coming from Barclays Nat Res) if that is what you truly want to do. Maybe not with the same firm, but a similar opportunity should be available. Furthermore, there is always the possibility that you will change your mind and decide that VC is not what you want to do -- perhaps you'll realize that you are more interested in working with later-stage companies after working at Barclays.

Can you really be guaranteed NRG at Barcap? But IMO why do banking just to hopefully get back to VC if you have what sounds like a good FT opportunity in VC in the region you want to end up in?

bump any other thoughts?