OHSP

My take: Dress however you want and don't listen to the prescriptive advice in this thread. I've seen prospective students wearing suits and ties, tweed jackets, summer dresses, jeans and sweatshirts, sleeveless tank tops, slogan t-shirts, etc. without attracting any comment. (The one thing I don't remember seeing is workout clothing, which may actually stand out enough for some professors to find it off-putting.)
It's true most grad students tend to dress in a particular way, but at least in my department that's a personal choice and not something professors or other grad students care about.
Your behavior/general demeanor is what people will remember from your visit, so just make sure your clothes are clean and you feel confident in them.

It depends on the school and who you are. Business casual would make you look out of place at NYU, so perhaps try to get a sense of what students wear. The ladies comment is strange. The main thing re clothes is to dress in a manner that's usual for you--don't go and buy khakis if you would never wear khakis. 

Just dress as you would to go to a grad school class. Jeans are fine, etc--I mean make sure your clothes are clean but don't wear a suit.

Just dress as you would to go to a grad school class. Jeans are fine, etc--I mean make sure your clothes are clean but don't wear a suit.

Dear Professor X,
Thank you very much for the encouragement to work with you at University A.  I appreciated our conversations and I learned a lot.  However, after much consideration, I have decided that University B is a stronger fit for my needs.
I look forward to continuing our conversations and seeing each other at future conversations.

DO NOT assume a large debt for a history MA.

It does depend a little though, like if you suddenly get into a much better school because you were on a secret waiting list... people understand. That’s why it’s a good reason to hold off on committing until you’ve heard back from all schools.

Congrats! I'm not a medievalist but have medievalist friends at very good schools and most of them did their MAs/MPhils in Europe--that doesn't mean it's better to study in Europe but in your field in particular, I doubt it would be a disadvantage. I personally think it's really useful to understand how academia works outside of the US and Trinity College is a good school (plenty of people--me, for instance--have been accepted into good US programs with MAs from totally unknown universities. Also why not just take the year or two abroad if you can afford it--to be able to do Celtic studies in Ireland seems enormously useful. 

You’ll never know for sure — the field changes, people move around, new networks get established, the sample size for small fields is too meager to make reliable judgments, and the job market can differ radically by type of school. This is why a PhD in history is always a risky endeavor.

I don't know how many times people have to say this but, seriously, you cannot use the US News rankings, they are not based on the actually important data i.e. placement in your field. Relying on the US News ratings to make decisions about where to apply, where to go etc is just a terrible idea.

I don't know how many times people have to say this but, seriously, you cannot use the US News rankings, they are not based on the actually important data i.e. placement in your field. Relying on the US News ratings to make decisions about where to apply, where to go etc is just a terrible idea.

You do the research, ask around, and make your own ranking. 

Vanderbilt is assuredly not a first tier program. DO NOT RELY ON THE US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT RANKINGS (I'm very passionate about ignoring them). The only Vanderbilt grad I know of in a R1 has had a very non-traditional career path and is an exceptional scholar.
Almost every department will provide a list of recent graduates. Google them, plus the university and see what they're doing. Anything like "adjunct assistant professor," "adjunct," or "independent scholar" is bad news.
 

It's nice to look at data etc but where you got your MA is far less important than the quality of your writing sample. You don't need to be at a prestigious, well-known school to write a great thesis. If people are wondering where to get their MA, they should be focused on finding schools that 1) will offer at least some funding and 2) will leave you with high quality, preferably publishable writing. 

It's nice to look at data etc but where you got your MA is far less important than the quality of your writing sample. You don't need to be at a prestigious, well-known school to write a great thesis. If people are wondering where to get their MA, they should be focused on finding schools that 1) will offer at least some funding and 2) will leave you with high quality, preferably publishable writing. 

It's nice to look at data etc but where you got your MA is far less important than the quality of your writing sample. You don't need to be at a prestigious, well-known school to write a great thesis. If people are wondering where to get their MA, they should be focused on finding schools that 1) will offer at least some funding and 2) will leave you with high quality, preferably publishable writing. 

US PhDs are more competitive on both sides of the Atlantic (at least in US history), and certainly more competitive in the US. Especially when your US PhD options are Penn or Princeton. Doing coursework and comprehensive exams will prepare you to teach, which is what most professorships emphasize. The US degree will serve you better by setting you up for a broader range of options. While non-academics can be impressed by European institutions on your CV, in my experience most historians recognize a US degree as a better indicator of depth and breadth of training. And it's other historians who will be evaluating you for a job, if you want to enter academia. It's still possible for you to give yourself that depth and breadth on your own, and to be an impressive historian, coming out of a UK institution. But in the early going, you will have to work harder to demonstrate that you can teach, know your field well, etc., and I don't see a great reason to put yourself through that if you don't have to.
The only caveats: if your archives are all in Europe, yes, there's an advantage to basing yourself in the UK--when it comes time to research. In my mind this is still a secondary concern to having coursework, comps, and a longer, more competitive program in the US, especially if your US program options have some guaranteed fellowship years (no teaching) where you can base yourself in the UK for a research year or two. I'd imagine Princeton, at least, is good at this. If your 100% perfect advisor is in the UK, and your American advising options don't feel quite right, that's another reason to consider a UK degree over an American one, as advisor fit is the most important factor when deciding between reasonably funded offers. And, of course, if you have personal reasons for wanting to be in the UK, you're in the best position to make that judgment call. But if your goal is a tenure track job in a history department, my money is on the US degree as the easiest, most competitive way forward. There are great postdoc opportunities in the UK and Europe, which would likely be the most beneficial way to get some time in the UK into your career. 
(all with a caveat that I don't know the History of Science job market) (and that getting a terminal MA in the UK can be a great option for boosting an application--my comments pertain only to a US vs. UK PhD dilemma)

One of the things I really like about NYU is that fields are very flexible--like, very, very, especially in the early years, and transnational work is very much encouraged. The Middle Easternists, Latin Americanists, Africanists, Americanists, and Atlantic worlds people all overlap often, and I know French studies people who take a lot of classes in MEIS, so that's a thing to keep in mind if you do apply there down the road!

I know this is a little beside the point but ARGH US News ratings. NYU is something like 23rd on that list, meanwhile one recent graduate just accepted a TT position at Cornell and another accepted a TT position at UI-Chicago (these are just announcements from the past week, there's been other job news this season), and NYUs Latin Americanists and Middle Eastern studies/history graduates are placed all over US schools, etc etc. In other words: placement, placement, placement. I was so deterred by rankings this time last year: NYU was by far the lowest ranked school I got into (by US News rankings) but it was also by far the best fit! Minnesota's not Yale but their program is good--you need to be asking professors and current students questions about how they place people who are in your field and who've worked with your advisor(s). I totally understand the anxiety and the what ifs and if you can do a funded MA and feel better about your future prospects then that might be a good choice, but I really, really, really want to deter you from letting the US News ranking influence you at all.

One of the things I really like about NYU is that fields are very flexible--like, very, very, especially in the early years, and transnational work is very much encouraged. The Middle Easternists, Latin Americanists, Africanists, Americanists, and Atlantic worlds people all overlap often, and I know French studies people who take a lot of classes in MEIS, so that's a thing to keep in mind if you do apply there down the road!

Also a little off track: I actually considered applying to NYU's French Studies/History program, but I ultimately decided I wanted my research to go in more of the African/Middle Eastern direction (I study French colonialism), as that would make me stand out more on the job market. I am already fluent in French and Spanish, so adding Arabic would be an awesome triad. Minnesota does well in this area in terms of coursework, languages, and research connections. I don't have the Arabic skills needed to have been accepted to NYU's Middle Eastern Studies/History focus, and I didn't see how Arabic study would have fit in the French Studies program. I felt like it would have been more of a "side focus" in that program than the main focus. If I get an MA in MENA studies, I will probably send an app to the ME/History program. 
I will keep your advice in mind moving forward.

In an ideal market, Minnesota is my first choice. I will be visiting pretty soon and asking these questions. I am also aware, like you are saying, that I could be blowing this out of proportion and possibly passing up a great opportunity. 

I thought the schools on my second list were reach schools at the time (and maybe they still are and I just got cocky after the acceptance?)
This is a lesson for those out there: don't let others deter you from following your gut. 

Personally, I wouldn't advise you to take an offer that's not a great fit to begin with. A PhD is a long process, and especially in the humanities, the school you go to matters quite a bit in future prospects. 
I think if it's such a bad fit that you'd consider MA programs over a funded PhD, you should not accept the PhD offer regardless.

Yes, exactly. What kind of job do you want? Which adviser has more of their students in that kind of job?