neat

Thank you all for the advice. There is some truly great insight here. I ended up choosing PTS for a variety of reasons. 
Although not the deciding factor, what @sacklunch said below is something that has been rattling around in my mind for the past 18 months. Either way, I really enjoyed visiting both schools and the debt vs. no debt factor kept coming up. I'm leaving a great job with full benefits, vacation, etc. for this. If I can be well prepared for church work, the a PhD program, and graduate with little to no debt, it seems like the way to go. 
 

If you are or think you will largely remain in the field of theology (I admit I'm not entirely sure what that means), then PTS being more "seminary-y" could be a good thing; my experience is Duke Divinity is more or less similar to PTS in that regard. Duke's Graduate Program in Religion (PhD) is a different animal entirely; there is room for interest in 'theology', but most of the subfields (my own included) have absolutely zero interest in 'theology'; we consider ourselves historians, classicists, etc., but most of us, as most folks in religious studies PhD programs elsewhere, consider 'theology' something unfit/inappropriate for non-seminary degrees. But, really, my .02 is put most of that out of your mind. Your interests will certainly change wherever you go; and not only that, but the job market is so hilariously bad in all subfields of higher learning in the humanities that there is no real way to prepare yourself. Excluding money et sim., you should just go where you feel comfortable. In the end, the academic route will probably not work out for you, just as it will likely not for myself and most others; but you might as well be happy and enjoy your learning environment while doing so.

While I can not speak to K-12 as my domain is higher education, I know that a lot of people usually do a M.Ed. as their first master's not as a second one. What I have typically found with teachers who have a second master's - they usually first get a master's in their specific content discipline and then get the teaching job (assuming they already have the license and certification requirements for that state) and then wait and do a second master's in education and curriculum specific once the school district is willing to pay for it (to avoid the some of the cost). The problem is, if you do not have the requirements to teach in your state you might find a private school who doesn't require the license or certification process, but public schools will. You can look into a post-bac program and see if that option is cheaper. Initial Teacher Licensure students are still typically eligible for federal and state financial aid, but are limited to the undergraduate aggregate level/amounts.
Just some food for thought.

I don't think you'll have much problems getting into a British MA because they exist to extract dollars from Americans. It's unlikely you'll get any financial support, however, because they exist to extract dollars from Americans

The real question to ask yourself is 'How can I bring about more positive change?'. If it's by getting a Ph.D.? If so, there should be no guilt. Your job feels like the world to you now, but the world is actually larger. 

Personally, I would not spend upwards of $60,000 on getting another Master's degree unless I suddenly decided to change career paths and was confident that this expenditure would payoff in the future (I think the estimated income for new HGSE grads is like $57,000??), but that's me.
Being brutally honest, your current GRE scores are a bit of a concern... and since you're still quite young, I would recommend studying for them again (if you have the financial means to do so). I am totally the same when it comes to testing (my first round of scores were not the best) but I took a few weeks to study and ended up increasing my scores quite a bit (above Harvard's averages in V & AWA). Yes, GREs are not everything and do not showcase an applicant's full academic capabilities, but they are still somewhat important and the "I never do well on standardized tests" reasoning doesn't stand as well when you have a Master's IMO. 
I would recommend taking a year or two to teach or do work in communities that you are passionate about and to experience the real world of supporting students. Yes, you have quite an extensive resume for a straight-out-of-undergrad/3+1/co-term applicant. However, from my own experience, I think that being a full-time teacher/educational advocate (I'm assuming that your Student Teacher experience was an in-person teaching requirement/internship for your Master's in Teaching?) truly exposes you to the intricacies of educational systems and systemic disparities that hinder the success of students. Hopefully such experiences will also allow for personal/career development that would better serve you in deciding if you truly want to pursue another graduate degree. Likewise, because you do have strong references, I would simply stay in touch and continue to try working with said professors.
However, as a college counselor, I would still encourage you to apply if you feel that this is the best path for you at the current moment! We never know what admissions committees are looking for as overall institutional goals constantly change from year to year so you may very well get in! ^^ 

Having a degree from Teacher's College IS (emphasis added) the same as a degree from Columbia University, even though it has a separate board of trustees, endowment, dean(president) than Columbia. TC is viewed as the graduate school of education at Columbia. Acceptance rates aren't a determiner of whether a school is part of a university. HGSE has higher acceptance rate compared to other schools at Harvard, that doesn't make it any less a part of Harvard University.

tl;dr this is a HARD problem. Before I started grad school, I would've told you Great School, no question. Now that I'm done and did a postdoc in a small college town that was OK at best and work in industry in a city I love...I don't know, man. Location and quality of life, IMO, is so important. I'm a big fan of treating a PhD program as a phase of your life - not some temporary, supra-existential chunk of Limbo time, but as an actual period of your life in which you deserve to be happy and develop yourself as a person and not just a professional. Balancing the two of them is really important.
I'm tempted to say that if you really believe "it's hard to go wrong with either," then why not go with the place where you really want to live and where you are pretty sure you can be happy?
*
The long version:
1. Fit is king. If Great School has research interests that are closer to yours, then it seems like it's probably a better fit for you.
2. I went to an Ivy in a very, very expensive city (Columbia, in New York). You get by, and can even thrive. I lived with roommates and/or in small apartments the entire time I was there, but there are unparalleled opportunities for work and play in large cities. It just kind of depends on what you value, what makes you tick. If you like lots of space and wide-open vistas, a tiny apartment in Boston or Philly or New York may drive you nuts. If you want to eat greasy pizza at a hole in the wall at 3:12 am or get Sri Lankan food delivered to your door or take in world-renowned ballet or opera in your downtime, then a big city is kind of the only place you can do that.
3. I will always appreciate and never regret the seven years I spent in New York. Life-defining opportunity, even while broke. Location in grad school is far more important than I gave it credit for before I was applying.
4. Doing research that you would kill to do is one of the only ways to maintain your sanity in graduate school. When you wake up in a cold sweat early one morning during your third year wondering why you are doing this to yourself, remembering that you are asking and answering the questions you are passionate about is what soothes you back to sleep (or, more likely, eases you out of bed to get a coffee and start reading). I'm half-joking, but seriously, there's something really special and joyful about digging into something you LOVE for five years straight. You want to be at a place where you can really do that. It sounds like Great School is. Is Ivy?
5. I went to an Ivy that also had a reputation for neglecting its students, which in my opinion was mostly true (it depended a lot on the department). In my opinion, this also wasn't so bad...but that depended a lot on the student and the professor. I had mentors who were pretty good to really great, and they would make time for me if I was proactive about seeking it out (but wouldn't necessarily come find me on their own, which I don't see as a problem). I had excellent research mentorship from people at the top of their field. And I would say in my case, it pushed me to be more independent: to come to meetings with mentors prepared with agendas and notes; to seek out multiple mentors from different institutions to give me what I needed when my main ones were missing in action; to think deeply about what I wanted and what my research interests were (and not my mentors'); to gently push back against things I did not want to do. Is this a pro over having a more nurturing mentor? I don't know. I have some friends who had super nurturing labs and mentors and that experience sounds lovely. It also sounds smothering, to someone who never had that. I kind of liked the fact that my mentors didn't really care where I was or what I was doing at specific hours of the day as long as I was turning in good work consistently. I'd also say that the 'friction' required to get stuff done has helped me in my professional career afterwards - I'm much better at pushing things forward and taking a proactive approach (and bringing attention to myself and the stuff I'm doing) than I would've been otherwise, and it's been noticed.
The advice I always give students looking at my program is that if you're already a person who's got well-defined ideas about what you want to do and a sense of self-assured independence, attending a department with somewhat-neglectful (I say that sort-of-affectionately) faculty isn't necessarily something that will destroy you.
6. Citations, or publications? Do the professors at Great School publish more prolifically than the faculty at Ivy? take note of that. You need publications, and one of the best ways to get them early on is to jump onto a publication a professor or PI is doing.
7. Is the Ivy actually a more prestigious program in your field, or are you just attending to overall prestige?
 

Given the particulars of your situation, I would contact the other two schools you turned down, explain to them that your circumstances have changed, and ask if they'd be willing to consider your Fulbright year as a deferral.

I second this. After my first year a bunch of the cohort seemed to be able to finance round-the-world trips and then I realized that they'd just spent 9 months living rent free courtesy of Family Cash. I make up for it by applying for fellowships while I scroll through their "beach life" instagram accounts (only kind of joking). I would also add that one thing I've seen get to people is the culture of academia--you can ❤️ research and teaching etc but that's only part of this place, and at my school the "I Love History!" folk don't really cope that well. If you're reading these boards I'd be very attentive to the advice you get from anyone attending the schools you're applying to--if someone says "I'm not sure that person really takes students" or "this school isn't strong in your area" then pay attention. It doesn't matter that you received a friendly email from a faculty member, they don't always know what's up in the department as a whole--current grad students are the most reliable source of accurate information. 

There's no magic formula to getting into a TT program in NT. So many qualified people apply for each spot that you're never guaranteed admission; there's definitely some luck involved. That said, of course there are better or worse things you can do to make you qualified in the first place. An MDiv from Truett would put you at a disadvantage because of its academic reputation. 
But I don't think the MDiv degree as a whole is disadvantageous. 
I'm currently in the NT PhD program at Duke. I'd say 60-70% of us (in NT, specifically) have MDivs; I'm one of them. Granted, these are almost entirely MDivs from big name schools. Especially if you're interested in teaching in a Christian context, I will always recommend the MDiv (at a big name school) over another master's degree to prepare you for a PhD in NT.  Why? 1) Cost: I have no debt from grad school, thanks to scholarships and generously funded internships. 2) The length of program: it gives you more time to build relationships with letter writers. You will have more course requirements than other M* students, but the extra year means the number of electives even out anyway (at least in my program). 3) Job opportunities: lots of people who think they want to do PhDs don't even end up applying. Interests change, the reality of the job market sets in, etc. An MDiv will prepare you to do more than just get a PhD. If it's at all appealing to you, you can become a pastor, work at a non-profit, be a hospital chaplain, etc.
Re: your chances of getting in to a big name school for an MDiv: I can only knowledgeably say this about Duke, but, yeah, you'll get in. Seminaries across the country are bleeding applicants right now. Admissions rates are incredibly high. Worry instead about being competitive enough to get a good scholarship.

Lots of good advice on this thread. (I can personally attest to @Rabbit Run's wealth of knowledge on this subject- he was really helpful to me when I was in the application cycle).
I'm at PTS for the MDiv right now and it sounds like it would be a good fit for you, at least based on the info you shared. PM me if you wish to speak further about it. Also, if you're interested in the Presbyterian route, Union Pres could be a good fit. There are several students here who visited and loved it there; their funding and faculty have a good reputation. 

Actually, not that different if your interests in ST are more contemporary. In both cases, you'll most likely have to demonstrate comprehension in two modern languages. Whether you dive into deeper fluency will depend on what your dissertation topic ends up being.
As someone who is at the end of an RS program in a theology track, I can say I definitely wish I had started German earlier. It's so vital for doing anything in the ST world, even if you don't primarily study German theology. Becoming fluent in German can really open up doors for you--Fulbright and other grants to study abroad, post-doc possibilities, etc. 
Aside from languages, it's really important to try and develop a relationship with a handful of faculty so they can write you letters. I went to Fuller, which mostly offers large lecture format courses, so it was difficult to stand out to the bigger name professors. I really made it a point to take their PhD seminars or set up one on one meetings with them to talk about my work. Even better, if you find someone you really like, try to line up a directed reading with him/her. This can allow them to really see what you're capable of, and it'll give you an opportunity to develop a potential writing sample.

If you were going for law or business, or even a field where direct from UG to PhD was normal I would be more willing to consider options B or C, but religion works different. Ministerial jobs are middle class for a lot more education than is normally required to be middle class. The process isn't as competitive and prestige-driven as other professional programs. Also the type of knowledge that you need to succeed in a religion PhD is so particular that you can do fine with an unknown UG if you have other factors going for you (learn languages!).
My Recommendation, as someone who went from Tier 2 state to YDS is this: enjoy the free ride, learn a language or two, volunteer or find a social justice niche, and go to a top Divinity School for your MTS/MAR. Your masters level training will be the main point of interest for PhD adcomms. Save your money now and break the bank on HDS/YDS/Chicago later.

Unless you are looking at a major leap up (to an Ivy or t20ish) the UG distinction won't matter much.

Beat yourself up for a week then find a constructive means to move forward.
At the very least, they'll need a meaningful way to occupy your time until next application season. There are several MTS/ThM/etc options with later deadlines should you find yourself in such a situation. There are plenty of M* graduates that strike out on PhD programs and go into ministry, nonprofits, etc. I know many ministers that teach part-time as adjuncts at their local CC or SLAC.
I think no matter what you have to continue pursuing theology to some degree. Maybe it's as an avid reader, applied journal submissions, diocese/conference presentations, etc. Something initially attracted you to pursuing the academic study of theology and if you don't nurture it, a part of you will die.
One can always reshape their focus but lets face it, getting into a RS or Theology program is fucking hard. English and History PhD programs are a dime a dozen and if you're willing to move, you can likely get in somewhere. Given the already low number of RS programs and even smaller number of faculty that cover your interests - it's not uncommon to only have 3-5 schools that are reasonable fits.

Generally speaking, your distinction between M.Div and MTS/MAR/MA is true. The former is geared those considering the possibilities of ordination or certain doors that may be opened with an M.Div, whereas the latter is considering academia, professional schools, or needing to acquire skills for a niche field, such as becoming a religion reporter. MTS-style degrees tend to have lower acceptance rates and less funding, while M.Div programs generally have higher acceptance rates and more funding, often due to denominational donors. Keep in mind that M.Div programs are three years, whereas MTS programs are two. M.Div acceptance rates at top schools bounce between 40-60% whereas MTS programs are closer to 30-40%±.
My usual advice is that if a student has any inclination toward ordination, religious leadership, or a "ordination if rejected from PhD programs" - go for the M.Div. You'll get most/all of the same courses, you can spend more time with languages, most schools let you cater field supervision to your needs (I TA'ed undergraduate RS courses for a year). In cases where students already have strong grounding in language, solid GRE, and they simply need to check off the "have a Master's" box to even apply - go the MTS route. If you can honestly say, "If I'm resoundingly rejected by all PhD programs then I'd rather go work a cubicle job than work in ministry/non-profit," then definitely hit up the MTS route. Don't spend the extra year and take out the extra loans for work that will crush your soul.
M.Div applicants are a dime a dozen when it comes to applying to PhD programs, it's not going to affect anything. You've had an extra year in school so some parts of your app should reflect how you took advantage of that. If your M.Div wasn't competitive or you didn't feel that it prepared you, there's always an STM degree. The one case where an M.Div might trump MTS/MA is if you were going to propose a field of study that touches on "applied/practical theology," (liturgy, homiletics, some theology fields, some areas of ethics, etc.) often schools and/or advisors will expect you to have an M.Div. 

This is actually a really good feeling to learn to control and tame. It doesn't ever really go away. But getting into a program is just the first step in a long process of continually applying for things and waiting for rejection with a few joyous acceptances peppered in. That's a lot of what academia is, tbh. Conferences, journal submissions, fellowship and grant proposals, the job market. All academics submit themselves to these things, all academics have these moments of panic, and all academics experience rejection. The key is not to allow the rejections to speak to who you are as a person, which, I think we get trained to do in our graduate programs, especially at the PhD level.
As everyone has pointed out, there are so many contingencies--things that are beyond your control that, should they lead to rejection, have nothing to do with your abilities as a scholar, your intelligence, and certainly not your worth as a person. It's the most frustrating thing ever (though the job market is worse), but accepting that this is just part of how it works mitigates some of that frustration (at least for me.)

Accepted! And for my part, I really am sorry for causing offense - I just don't know how to communicate what needs to be said here otherwise. Suggestions are certainly welcome on that front! And, as I stare down yet another Christmas with my financially-obsessed in-laws, let me tell you that it is apparently the season for being told your PhD is nothing. 
I didn't really want to say that what you've worked for is nothing. Instead, I'd tell you about my old MA adviser (he of the devastating writing feedback), who always says: "Why do we go to grad school? To get a job!" This is how I understand that: the PhD isn't - or shouldn't be - your goal. It's not what you're working for. It's just a signpost to others that you've done a certain thing, and that you're prepared to keep doing similar things in the future. The actual goal is to spend your life in a way you consider to be productive and worthwhile. A PhD may (or may not) be a step on that path, but always remember that your goal is a process, a way of living, and not a point.

You sound like my exhusband. He too had an answer for everything and thought his way was the only way. 

I will add and say that @telkanuru has many insightful posts that have given me insight into the graduate school/application process before I applied, accepted, and began my program. It may be to the benefit of @historynerd97 to browse through some of those for perspective. Even now as a doctoral student I still refer to some of their posts. @Sigaba also has also made helpful contributions to the History thread.
I'm not sure if this is unique to the History thread but it seems many of the new applicants are always hostile toward some of the more experienced posters. Last year's applicant thread was a trainwreck because of this. Somehow, genuine advice is perceived as snark or some sort of 'ivory tower elitism.' The perspective and advice given by folks who are currently in the PhD process is super valuable and, to be frank, they are not obligated to help anyone. Start with the assumption that the more experienced users just really want to help new applicants. 
 

This is a construction I see fairly often, and it worries me a bit, since it feeds into the fetish cult of work that dominates academia, and into the idea that if you're "right" for PhD work you should go for it, come what may. 
I think it's better to say that a PhD is something you should consider if you find that research is something you genuinely enjoy and continue to do even when not forced to it. This is why I would encourage everyone to take time off from the academic world before applying to PhD programs. But at the same time, it should never be your only possible option. Based on the current status of academia, it is a flat-out bad idea to go to the vast majority of PhD-granting institutions; the neoliberal university - particularly state schools - sees graduate students as a cheap way to cover teaching load and couldn't care less what happens to them after, by and large. There are very specific things that define a good program - a program that produces PhDs ready for the job market - and they are all structural: money, support, and a low teaching load. Every school that has these also has the intellectual chops. 
This is totally true, and I wouldn't hide behind that sort of system! But it's worth keeping in mind that the 'snarky' people here tend to be the more experienced (and thus more jaded) members of the forum. I myself go back and forth on how best to approach what we might call unwarranted enthusiasm. On one hand, I don't want to step all over an enthusiastic potential colleague, but letting misconceptions go without direct and obvious correction has its own problems. In a personal interaction, it affects only the individual. Here, however, it resonates with those who will read these threads for however long they exist, and so I see silence as the worse choice.
But we have a concrete example before us: a person with little (no) experience has provided information which is flat-out wrong. What would you do?
I'm not saying you have to agree with the approach, but hopefully it makes sense.

According to the study's authors, they reflect prestige, which is why network centrality is the metric of choice. If you're like, say, UMich, and have a lot of students placing at a variety of different schools, it ranks you higher. But similarly, if you're able to place a few students at Harvard, Princeton, and Columbia, like Brandeis, you also get ranked higher. 
Anecdotally, as someone who's gone to grad school at two Ivies at different levels of the prestige scale (Harvard and Brown), there is little difference in terms of quality of instruction. This is substantially different than my undergrad experience, where the instructors at Harvard - even its night school - were markedly better than the ones I had at either UMass or BU. 
However, Harvard's prestige, coupled with its financial clout, makes it notably different when it comes to networking. Just as one example, here at Brown we have a visiting scholar come and give a small talk on their latest project once a month or so - usually either a mid-level prof or someone higher ranked who has a personal relationship with a faculty member. At Harvard, this happened every week, and it was always very senior figures who came. If you wanted, you could join them for dinner after, gratis. It would be foolish to think this does not have an impact on Harvard's placement rate.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the 'rank' of the school you attend has little relationship to your raw intelligence, as far as that's a concept that even makes sense. It will, however, have a massive impact on the work you produce, through the support (financial and intellectual) you have when producing it and the networks you develop which foster its impact.

If you're entering TFA, you will likely have very little free time to prepare for graduate school, and you might find your plans for the future evolving alongside your corps experience. In all likelihood, the most you'll be able to manage while working 60+ hours a week is to study for and take the GREs.
 Are you primarily focused on 20th C history? As pudewen mentioned, French is the "obvious" language, but this will depend on your interests. You might consider applying to do a Fulbright in a West/Central African country after TFA, or look into MA programs to better refine your interests. 

I have stated earlier in this thread that public universities all over this country have many different types of online degrees (both undergrad and master's level) and do not differentiate somewhere on their diplomas that the degree was obtained by online classes. My MA was about 1/3 person-to-person and 2/3 online. Because I lived in the area, I was funded as a GTA and received good training. I'm not fond of on-line classes, because I learn better in a person-to-person class. However, I wrote a great deal more in the online classes because of discussion boards. As a result, there is give and take. I am in the first semester of a PhD program and no one has ever questioned the legitimacy of my MA. I contribute as much to seminar discussions as anyone else and I am as widely read (if not more so). I had excellent GRE scores. Education is all about the person and what they are prepared to do. I have attended three universities now, two very large state institutions and one small state institution, two of which are accredited by SACSCG and one by NEASC. I found similarities between the professors at all three universities. Each has various online degrees. JKL you are correct about the pretentious smirks from universities; yet, I find it ironic that while such adcoms are smirking away, their own universities are handing out degrees to online students by the dozen, if not hundreds.

As somebody from a family of Arab Christians, who have been Christian since the days of the Byzantine empire, I'd like to object to the conflation of "Arab" and "Muslim" that "go figure" implies. Are all people with Arabic names biased in favor of Islam? Surely not. I don't want to take away from the more important point here, which is: don't dismiss authors because of their religion! At the same time, I wanted to note that my heritage exists.