The test wasn’t devised to see how you win. It was devised to see how people held up under circumstances that led to defeat. This is a critical aspect of leadership. That’s an important thing to know, if you’re actually going to never give up, not lose your ability to think on your feet, and avoid defeat if at all possible.
Kirk circumvented this process. He was never evaluated in this manner. If that was a prerequisite, then he received preferential treatment by being allowed to pass without taking the test.
It’s an interesting ethical dilemma. Is it okay to cheat to win and if so, in what circumstances.
Yep. It’s one way to look at it. On the other hand, maybe in the “future” we would know more about human psycology than we do today, just as we know more today than we did 500 years ago.
As I recall, Spock says he (Kirk) took the test "three times", and therefore did face the real test twice. Since there can be no "winning" of the scenario -- normally -- I always figured this meant that cadets who were dissatisfied with their own performance could opt to re-take it. Indeed, the question of how many times a candidate chooses to subject themselves to a no-win scenario, and their reasons for doing so, might very well be part of what the Academy evaluates.
I could see the instructors being sufficiently impressed at Kirk's ability to think outside the box (and thus snatch victory where everyone else has been defeated) that they would give him a pass on this.
It is better to have an officer who is very good at not losing, than one who has proven his ability to gracefully accept the deaths of his command.
IIRC, he took it 3 times, and cheated once. But I might nor remember correctly...Star Trek is NOT my life!