<p>I haven’t done the big math competitions, but others have suggested that the skills needed for those and the skills needed to succeed at MIT don’t entirely overlap.</p>
<p>Here’s the thing - there are probably some established way you can prep for and get better at competitions.</p>
<p>But the real reason what Piper said is true would be that the skills of conceptualizing what you need to and putting in consistent effort to absorb material, internalize the different ways you may see it again, etc, are different from the skills of noticing math competition problems and having the right intuition on what to do. While it’s true that people who achieve brutally high results at, say the IMO, are inherently terrifically gifted problem solvers, if you take much lower end achievements at math competitions, they needn’t correlate perfectly at all with success in high level university work. </p>
<p>You spend the time, be smart and inquisitive about what you have to do at MIT, and you’ll get somewhere. </p>
<p>AP level courses don’t need constant studying for everyone, as far as I’m aware. For the past 2 years, all I’ve done is listen in class, and I’ve gotten good grades, with the occasional lapse here and there because of a lack of any studying.</p>
<p>A well-taught AP course can be very challenging, because they’re meant to be introductions to college level material, and that can be taught at different levels. The course can be at a higher level than the AP exams suggest, by far.</p>
<p>Sure, taking a class on the Fourier series or organic chemistry has more advanced material than Calculus BC or AP Chemistry, but it’s all subject material. Your skills in studying efficiently and thinking sharply are more important, which, I think, is what AP classes train you in.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with this.</p>