turnings

The quantitative score is essentially irrelevant at most schools, even in the "top 10." Provided your score is not genuinely abysmal the only thing that will matter to admissions committees is the verbal section - this, obviously, should be as close to 170 as possible.
 
(one note: I believe many state schools use gre scores to determine funding packages, so what I said above may not apply in all cases.)

I don't think there's really any excuse for a lack of familiarity with major theoretical trends. Every historian should have at least a broad strokes understanding of the history of philosophy - there is a disappointing tendency to read big 20th century names (Foucault especially) with no attempt to contextualize them. Kant and Hegel especially are thinkers people avoid taking the time to read (because they are very difficult) but you can't really get what's going on in most of western thought through to the present without them. Hegel particularly is important for historians; too many people read trendy Marxist thinkers without really understanding dialectical method.

Hi I'm from 1893 and I'd like to tell you the objective truth about our cutting edge advances in racial science. Onward empire!

Hi I'm from 1893 and I'd like to tell you the objective truth about our cutting edge advances in racial science. Onward empire!

If I recall correctly, the placement of Brandeis on the list was somewhat anomalous (I can't remember the reason - I think they only looked at a particular part of its program, on "American Civilization" or something like that?). 

More accurate.

More accurate.

The very best programs are competing for a similar set of applicants. Obviously not the same as fit varies from place to place but, as you'll discover when you bump into a number of the same people at different admit weekends, there is a fair bit of overlap. I imagine this is why places like NYU have such notoriously insane admissions procedures - they're competing for the Harvard-level admits but don't have quite the pull of those five or six top departments.
Mind I'm not saying it's great that the system works this way, and obviously the programs you're admitted to have, within reason, only a marginal relation to how talented you might be as a historian. The problem with prestige is that its luster fails to fade even when we admit to the much more complicated reality of the process.

Hi I'm from 1893 and I'd like to tell you the objective truth about our cutting edge advances in racial science. Onward empire!

Hi I'm from 1893 and I'd like to tell you the objective truth about our cutting edge advances in racial science. Onward empire!

Hi I'm from 1893 and I'd like to tell you the objective truth about our cutting edge advances in racial science. Onward empire!

Hi I'm from 1893 and I'd like to tell you the objective truth about our cutting edge advances in racial science. Onward empire!

1) Quant scores mean next to nothing.
2) An MA will not harm your future prospects at PhD programs, and will very likely improve your application.

3) The Ivys (this is not a terribly useful metric for graduate program prestige, btw) do not have any particular preference for students coming directly from undergraduate programs, so far as I am aware.
It sounds like you have a fair idea of what you'd like to study, and you've apparently identified some historians with whom you'd like to work. If you apply to both MA and doctoral programs, I would imagine you have a good shot at receiving admission somewhere. Even if you don't receive a direct PhD admit, a funded MA is quite a good deal and should position you very well for applications down the line. I'd go for it and apply now.

Fair enough. I don't know that there's any real difference between 124 and 74 or 123 and 92 though. Given the conclusions of the study, one should think very, very carefully about attending a program that far down the chain.

There's also the tried and true R1 --> book contract & book --> adjunct

There's also the tried and true R1 --> book contract & book --> adjunct

There's also the tried and true R1 --> book contract & book --> adjunct

There's also the tried and true R1 --> book contract & book --> adjunct

There's also the tried and true R1 --> book contract & book --> adjunct

I think it should be noted that publishing for the sake of publishing is often a mistake. As an undergraduate it was suggested to me by a professor that I publish an essay I'd written. My adviser recommended against this. Why? Because the prestige of where you publish matters. Nobody really cares that you've published a paper in a minor regional journal. Now I'm not saying you should never publish unless it's the AHR. I am simply emphasizing that you should not expect a couple of publications to make a big difference in the admissions process. As everyone else has said, the writing sample and statement of purpose are the alpha and the omega.

No one wants to read a 2500 word statement of purpose.

No one wants to read a 2500 word statement of purpose.

Yale has Timothy Snyder and Marci Shore for eastern europe so yeah I'd say they're alright on that front.

um... Oxford in the 1960s? You might want to work with Christopher Hill he's really doing some pathbreaking work.

um... Oxford in the 1960s? You might want to work with Christopher Hill he's really doing some pathbreaking work.