OHSP

Yeah that's a painful situation--definitely a positive rather than a negative sign, and it might be (as is often the case with state schools) that they are trying to make sure that they offer spots to people who are relatively likely to accept them. Unfortunately there's basically no way to know for sure what's happening in a specific department's adcom this year, but you now definitely know that you're being considered as a strong candidate, so there's that! The waiting game is horrible but it'll all be over soon! 

If anyone was wondering, gradcafe has a handy "ignore user" setting if you find yourself confronted by someone who is annoying and refuses to stop talking.
And just in case anyone cares about my 2 cents, Madison has a solid placement record and is, in fact, one of the top 20 programs which disproportionately places its grads in TT jobs. It has an excellent record. It may not be Princeton or Yale, but it isn't a program to scoff at.

This is a battle that we have to fight almost every year. The government is only interested in the bottom line, which means that basic necessities like building maintenance are overlooked. Seriously, the Humanities building used to have floor heat, but it failed some years ago and nobody has bothered to try to fix it. Our DGS suspects the person responsible for its upkeep has died.

You did it again!! Wisconsin is not a top pogram  

The only metric that actually matters is jobs. The US News and World Report rankings are junk.

Funding is so important, follow the funding. I went to a no-name institution outside of the US for my MA, got into 5 schools, one of them an ivy (seeing as we're talking about prestige). Can I ask why it matters to you to go to an ivy? And why you're distinguishing between "decent programs" and ivies? Depending on subfield it can be true that people have somewhat easier times getting a job if they've been to Yale than if they've been to a very good but not "ivy" school like Michigan, but rarely without the right advisor, supporting faculty, etc etc etc. Is your goal to use your MA to get into the best PhD program for you or to get into an ivy program, because those are different things. 

Focus on what you're trying to do and go to the best place to do that (assuming that best place also leaves you with the least amount of debt). Don't get distracted by notoriety.

Here's a different way to look at it.  Where do the scholars at UT-Austin and Arizona that are potential mentors received their doctorates?  Were they earned at top history programs?  Do they still have a relationship with their former schools?  Are they respected in their sub-fields?  If the answers are in the affirmative, then I think those factors are more important than the "prestige" of the school with just one faculty or no faculty in your chosen field at the MA level.  

I can tell you, more or less, how admission works at Ivies. I am now at a top 10 ivy, and got accepted to one more. My supervisor volunteered to tell me how I got accepted. And I was also told by one POI how admission works to explain why I got rejected.
At Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton, there are admin committees. Committees are assembled at random and are rotational. These committees are made up of professors culled from different subfields. These are the people, if you get accepted, will remember your application with striking accuracy, and they will make small talk with you during visiting days. I am almost certain the DGS is not on the admin committee. 
Princeton, Harvard, and Columbia get about 400-500 applications each, of those only about 50-75 (sometimes 100) are good ones. Those get ranked by GRE, GPA, etc (such as, grants, awards). Yes GRE verbal matters. It doesn't matter for all committee members, but good students do get rejected for a low verbal score. You don't need a perfect score, but a decent score. MA gpa trumps BA gpa. LORs are very important. And Languages! My cohort,  Americanists included, commands at least two languages, at least! Most have three or four under their belt. You are expected to sit for your language exam in September. 
But it's the SOP that makes or breaks your app. If your SOP is compelling, and fits with the general theme of the history department, your package is sent to your future supervisor (whomever you named in your SOP), and other professors in your sub-interests. You need sub-interests, which signal you can work with a few professors, not just one, who may retire or die or you just don't jive with. Committees know this. Students who have very particular singular interests, and can only work with one single professor, and no one else, tend to get rejected. Even excellent students.  
Your (future) supervisor and other professors (in your secondary field/s of interest) review your app, and approve or reject it. If they approve it, it goes back to the admin committee to be discussed further. At this point, it is up to the whims (and I kid you not WHIMS) of the admin committee to narrow the list of candidates further. Your supervisor and professors in your sub-fields who read your SOP and file, can exert some pressure on the admin committee to get you in. But to an extent, and usually only faculty with endowed chairs. Again, to an extent.
Once you make it to the top 40 or so candidates, and you get rejected or waitlisted, know it is not a reflection of your potential, but the people on the admin committee the year you applied. If they specialize in French or British history, and you have a sub-interest or have background in those regions, you may get accepted. If you have an LOR whom the head of the admin knows because both attend same conferences, and like each other, you may get accepted. 
Also know, committees know students change their interests once they get in. I did, dramatically, and I know other students who did as well. That is why admin committees do not strictly choose students by their professed interests, or the presence of a POI in the department. They choose students with accolades, proven ability to do historical research, and ask critical, and probing questions. Cohorts are themed. It is rather strange but I find that each cohort has students that somehow connect with each other, not directly, but generally. So say, most have an underlying interest in global studies, or transnational history. Someone on this forum mentioned that historians are now more transnational rather than strictly regional. That is true. I notice that it is becoming more and more passé to focus on a single region. It narrows down your job prospects. Committees also choose candidates with an eye to the future. How will those students fair on the job market 6-7 years down the line, with a singular interest?
If you don't get an interview, don't sweat it. Most people are not interviewed, unless specifically indicated on the relevant school website that they will be solicited for an interview! If you get an interview, cool! 
If you want to get into a top-history program and you are not successful in this cycle, don't settle or despair, but apply again next year (of course, if it is within your financial means to do so). Committees change from year to year. Best of Luck! 
 
 
 

I was admitted to UIUC last year, also in the first week of January--they do it so that they have time to nominate you for UIUC's bigger fellowships. I didn't end up going to UIUC but from my experience the early admission is a good sign!

As a 26 year old married to a 37 year old, I'd probably say you could be a bit more open-minded. Not all 20 somethings are straight out of college. You might find it difficult to connect to someone whose life thus far has included going to high school and then straight into the US college system (which, to an Australian who spent a semester at a US college in 2010, seems very much like a continuation of high school). But that's not going to be every single person in your cohort. I guess these are the types of things you can't really know until you're there.

This is Oh So Not the way to decide on where to obtain your graduate education. Talk to your advisors, consider fit, funding, location, placement records of your potential schools, and go from there. Rankings on this piece of paper aren't worth the electronic ink that's spilled on them as far as graduate education is concerned. 

Just on this, though, the PhD is a place for you to work out how/where you fit in respect to these fields--I certainly know US hist professors who work across all three. But @kenalyass what books are you reading and whose works are you into, within US history? Tom Sugrue seems obviously relevant? You might want to think about which schools you're drawn to by thinking about whose work attracts you. 

I think writing samples and personal statements are much more important. 

This is good advice but I'd just add the qualifier that the length and content of your email will depend on your circumstances--I was looking to work on a pretty specific project that departed from my previous work, and in the emails I sent I included two relatively short paragraphs explaining what I wanted to do. I am really glad I did that because professors were able to give me very specific tips on where to apply, how to tailor my application to their schools etc. One professor sent me a really long and helpful email that was super enthusiastic, and when I got into that school and she was going to be my potential advisor, she knew my interests very well and was able to give me more advice about the benefits/disadvantages of the various school's I'd gotten into. I didn't end up going to that school, but it was the beginning of a relationship. That's maybe a best case scenario, but I honestly don't think you should be thinking in terms of long/short alone--it's about being clear and to the point, and sometimes that requires a paragraph explanation of what you want to do and why you're emailing that person, specifically. 

NB: if you message me I'm happy to send you more details re the emails I sent. It was the most useful thing I did when I was applying. 

Good luck surviving in a PhD program with an attitude like this. 

I wouldn't worry too much about the different regional focus, especially if the classes helped you to develop your research questions, your methodological interests etc etc. I applied as an Americanist with a Soviet writing sample and it didn't stop me from getting into good schools--I did explain the shift (briefly) in my SoP but really they're more interested in the quality of the questions you're asking etc. 

This is good advice but I'd just add the qualifier that the length and content of your email will depend on your circumstances--I was looking to work on a pretty specific project that departed from my previous work, and in the emails I sent I included two relatively short paragraphs explaining what I wanted to do. I am really glad I did that because professors were able to give me very specific tips on where to apply, how to tailor my application to their schools etc. One professor sent me a really long and helpful email that was super enthusiastic, and when I got into that school and she was going to be my potential advisor, she knew my interests very well and was able to give me more advice about the benefits/disadvantages of the various school's I'd gotten into. I didn't end up going to that school, but it was the beginning of a relationship. That's maybe a best case scenario, but I honestly don't think you should be thinking in terms of long/short alone--it's about being clear and to the point, and sometimes that requires a paragraph explanation of what you want to do and why you're emailing that person, specifically. 

NB: if you message me I'm happy to send you more details re the emails I sent. It was the most useful thing I did when I was applying. 

This is good advice but I'd just add the qualifier that the length and content of your email will depend on your circumstances--I was looking to work on a pretty specific project that departed from my previous work, and in the emails I sent I included two relatively short paragraphs explaining what I wanted to do. I am really glad I did that because professors were able to give me very specific tips on where to apply, how to tailor my application to their schools etc. One professor sent me a really long and helpful email that was super enthusiastic, and when I got into that school and she was going to be my potential advisor, she knew my interests very well and was able to give me more advice about the benefits/disadvantages of the various school's I'd gotten into. I didn't end up going to that school, but it was the beginning of a relationship. That's maybe a best case scenario, but I honestly don't think you should be thinking in terms of long/short alone--it's about being clear and to the point, and sometimes that requires a paragraph explanation of what you want to do and why you're emailing that person, specifically. 

NB: if you message me I'm happy to send you more details re the emails I sent. It was the most useful thing I did when I was applying. 

I've noticed that Oxford and Cambridge graduates do not tend to do as well on the academic job market. That's obviously not because of the schools' lack of prestige but rather an awareness that the D.Phil is just a different degree that does not necessarily prepare graduates as well for the kind of work they need to do to succeed on the tenure track at an American university. The last few searches I've been on did not short-list anyone from Oxford or Cambridge--not because of any bias against the university but simply because their work was not as promising as other candidates' at a similar stage.
As far as the Graduate Institute Geneva: I've never heard of it, and I've never met anyone who received their terminal degree there. That doesn't mean that it's a lesser place or that it provides a weaker education. But it's worthwhile to spend some time looking at the professors who currently occupy the jobs you hope to interview for in 5-8 years. Have any of them graduated from this place? If not, I would consider veeeeeeeery carefully whether a degree from that institution is likely to get you where you want to be.
(Free bonus advice: Scrutinizing the CVs of tenured faculty at places like the ones you might want to work at someday is an excellent habit to cultivate now, in the application process. There's a common saying floating around these boards to the effect that Hey, it only takes one acceptance! Which is a very supportive thing to say, and also potentially catastrophic. There are some programs that will simply not grant graduates much of a chance on the hypercompetitive job market, and closing your eyes to that data is a recipe for a lot of heartbreak down the road.)

Please do keep in mind that willing, able, available, desirable, and capable are different questions. And you may not really get the answers that you need until you're in a program.

I assumed that a faculty member who I really liked wouldn't be able to act as my advisor because they didn't yet have tenure and I was wrong, and she's an excellent advisor. Luckily, despite the fact that I didn't mention her in my SOP or email her before I applied, she was on the admissions committee and saw the connections between my interests and hers, so I've ended up with her as my advisor anyway. Which is basically all to say that I got lucky but you could easily make incorrect assumptions about who is and isn't able to act as an advisor, and the only way to find out is to email them and/or other current grad students in your field at that school. 

Good luck surviving in a PhD program with an attitude like this. 

Good luck surviving in a PhD program with an attitude like this. 

Good luck surviving in a PhD program with an attitude like this.