OpettaGregoria

An MA is largely just a stepping stone to a PhD for people coming out of undergrad who aren't strong enough applicants to go straight into a PhD program. Since you've been accepted to a PhD program with funding, there isn't much use for an MA. I'd skip it. 

I strongly disagree--the MA isn't necessarily "just a stepping stone". If you're coming straight from undergrad then (a) you are young and have time and (b) the MA is going to give you an opportunity to spend two years properly locating yourself within your field, attending conferences, perhaps even publishing. I chose to do the MA not because I wasn't a "strong enough applicant" (I got into PhD programs as well) but because I wanted to spend two focused years producing a more succinct body of work and making sure that I definitely wanted to pursue history. I am so happy that I did my MA and I'm now entering a PhD program with strong contacts, an even clearer sense of my interests, teaching experience, good publications and conference presentations etc. You don't need an MA but I have absolutely no regrets about getting one. 

An MA is largely just a stepping stone to a PhD for people coming out of undergrad who aren't strong enough applicants to go straight into a PhD program. Since you've been accepted to a PhD program with funding, there isn't much use for an MA. I'd skip it. 

An MA is largely just a stepping stone to a PhD for people coming out of undergrad who aren't strong enough applicants to go straight into a PhD program. Since you've been accepted to a PhD program with funding, there isn't much use for an MA. I'd skip it.