Here's the dilemna:

I now have two offers:

To work for the SEC in Washington, DC, and to work for the SEC in San Francisco, CA.

Why the Washington DC office?
-They do more stuff there. It's the headquarters for the SEC and thus, more high level stuff (appellate work, rule-making, etc.) is conducted at the D.C. Office.
-All the cool summer training is conducted out of the SEC headquarters in D.C.
-They pay a salary.
-Both my corporations and securities regulation professors say that the D.C. office is the place you want to be within the SEC.
-The D.C. office hires new law school grads right out of law school.
-D.C. is closer to New York which I wanted to go visit again.
-There are cool museums and places to see in D.C.
-I can go to Nationals-Giants game...

Why not the Washington DC Office?
-It's hot and humid in D.C. during the summer and freezing cold with snow in the winter.
-The traffic sucks in D.C.
-It's expensive (for a US City) to live in D.C.
-D.C. is one of the most dangerous cities in America.
-D.C. is thousands of miles away from my gf.

Why the SF office?
-SF is home.
-SF is closer to my gf.
-SF has nicer weather during the summer time.
-I can go to SF Giants games every day...
-I don't have to pay rent in SF.

Why NOT the SF office?
-The SF Office only has one division: Enforcement; the cops... if I want to do litigation and go to court, Enforcement is the best way to go.
-The SF Office isn't sure that it will be able to pay me anything.
-The SF Office will conduct its training by video (of the training that I would have gotten live at D.C.)

The dilemna!