The phrase I hate CBTs echoes across corporate intranets, classroom forums, and Reddit threads alike.
From new hires at multinational firms to seasoned professionals, the sentiment is universal: Computer-Based Trainings (CBTs)—those mandatory, screen-driven courses on workplace conduct, cybersecurity, safety, and skills—have become an emblem of modern workplace dissatisfaction.
“I click through as fast as possible.”
“I can’t even remember what the last CBT was about.”
“It’s training theater, not learning.”
These are not isolated grumbles. They are symptomatic of a deeper issue: the widening gap between how people naturally learn and how institutions deliver digital education.
As companies, governments, and educational institutions double down on CBTs to save time and cut costs, a growing chorus of learners is asking a pointed question:
Is anyone actually learning anything at all?
A Brief History of CBTs: From Innovation to Irritation
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Computer-Based Training was revolutionary. It offered a flexible, scalable alternative to traditional classroom instruction. Companies like IBM and Boeing embraced CBTs to train employees without pulling them away from daily tasks for expensive, instructor-led sessions.
Early CBTs were rudimentary—mostly text and simple quizzes—but they represented freedom from lecture halls and rigid schedules.
By the 2000s, CBTs had matured. Multimedia content, interactive simulations, and gamified learning promised to keep pace with changing technology and work environments.
Yet somewhere along the way, the promise soured.
Today’s learners often encounter CBTs that feel less like empowerment and more like bureaucratic box-checking exercises.
Why Learners Say “I Hate CBTs”: Five Key Frustrations
1. Tedious, One-Size-Fits-All Content
CBTs are often designed for maximum compliance, not customized understanding. A data privacy course designed for legal teams is the same one served to marketing interns.
Learners are forced through hours of material, much of which may be irrelevant to their roles.
“I had to complete a forklift safety CBT. I work in finance.” — Anonymous employee, multinational bank
2. Clunky Interfaces and Poor UX
Despite advances in consumer technology, many CBT platforms use outdated interfaces that frustrate users.
Tiny buttons. Unresponsive design. Endless “Next” clicks. If Instagram and TikTok can captivate billions, why can’t CBT designers create intuitive experiences?
3. Passive Learning and Click-to-Progress Culture
Many CBTs prioritize completion over comprehension. Users quickly learn that selecting any answer, even at random, often leads to the same outcome: “You may proceed.”
This teaches employees how to pass tests, not apply knowledge.
4. Lack of Real-World Relevance
Scenarios feel artificial. A cybersecurity CBT may teach users how to spot phishing emails from 2010, not the sophisticated scams of 2025.
Learners disengage when they perceive content as outdated or disconnected from reality.
5. No Space for Critical Thinking or Dialogue
Unlike live workshops or mentorships, CBTs rarely allow for discussion, pushback, or clarification.
Learners are passive recipients, not active participants.
The Science of Learning—and Where CBTs Go Wrong
Cognitive psychologists have long understood that engagement, relevance, and interactivity are essential for meaningful learning.
Dr. Melissa Crane, a learning sciences researcher at Northwestern University, explains:
“People learn best when they can connect new information to existing knowledge, apply it in context, and reflect on it. Most CBTs isolate information and discourage interaction.”
This gap between learning theory and CBT practice explains why so many learners resent—and forget—what CBTs teach.
The Corporate Perspective: Compliance vs. Competence
Why do organizations continue to rely on CBTs despite learner frustration?
Cost and Scale
CBTs offer a scalable, low-cost solution for training large workforces across multiple locations.
Liability Protection
Completed CBTs create digital records proving that employers have fulfilled legal and regulatory training requirements.
For many HR and compliance departments, documented completion often matters more than demonstrated competence.
When CBTs Work: The Exceptions
Not all CBTs deserve disdain.
Well-designed modules—often found in high-risk industries like aviation and medicine—can deliver critical training effectively.
For example:
- Flight simulators incorporate advanced CBT concepts with real-time feedback and adaptive challenges.
- Medical e-learning often uses scenario-based learning to simulate diagnostic decision-making.
These successes share a common thread: high relevance, interactivity, and investment in design.
Beyond the Grievances: Learners’ Demands for Better CBTs
What do learners actually want?
1. Personalization
Adaptive learning paths that consider prior knowledge, role relevance, and learning preferences.
2. Interactive Scenarios
Real-world challenges that require application, not rote memorization.
3. Mobile Compatibility
Training that works as smoothly on a smartphone as on a desktop.
4. Opportunities for Feedback and Discussion
Channels for learners to ask questions and share insights.
5. Shorter Modules
Microlearning formats that respect time constraints and cognitive load.
The Rise of Learner Activism
In 2024, a group of employees at a major tech company petitioned HR leadership to revamp the company’s CBT program. They proposed a learner advisory board to help shape future content.
The petition gained 2,000 signatures in a week.
While the company declined to disclose full details, sources confirm that the CBT vendor contract was renegotiated to prioritize user feedback and instructional design improvements.
The CBT Industry Responds
Some vendors are heeding the backlash.
NextWave Learning Systems, a top CBT provider, announced in early 2025 that its new platform would integrate:
- AI-driven personalization
- Peer-to-peer learning modules
- Gamified progress tracking
Yet critics caution that technology upgrades alone won’t solve the cultural problems embedded in corporate training.
True progress requires shifting priorities from compliance checkboxes to learner competence and satisfaction.
The Broader Implications: What CBT Discontent Reveals About Work Culture
The I hate CBTs movement is not just a critique of bad instructional design.
It reflects wider discontent with top-down management, impersonal workplaces, and performative learning rituals.
As workforces become younger, more diverse, and more vocal, employee expectations for transparency, relevance, and respect are reshaping workplace policies—from training to leadership communication.
The Future of CBTs: Evolution or Extinction?
Experts foresee three possible futures:
1. Reinvention
CBTs become part of blended learning ecosystems, combining digital flexibility with human mentorship and collaborative learning.
2. AI-Enhanced Learning
Adaptive platforms powered by AI will craft learning journeys personalized to each user, improving relevance and retention.
3. Phased-Out Formality
In progressive organizations, CBTs may shrink in scope as informal, on-demand learning and social knowledge-sharing rise.
Conclusion: From Dreaded Duty to Empowering Experience?
The phrase I hate CBTs may capture today’s frustrations, but it also signals a potential turning point.
As employees voice dissatisfaction and demand change, forward-thinking organizations have an opportunity to reinvent learning—not as a bureaucratic hurdle but as a meaningful, engaging, and empowering process.
For CBTs to survive, they must evolve.
For learners to thrive, they must be heard.
FAQs About “I Hate CBTs” and Digital Training
1. What does “I hate CBTs” refer to?
It’s a common expression of frustration toward Computer-Based Trainings, often seen as tedious or ineffective.
2. Why are CBTs unpopular?
Many feature generic content, poor design, passive learning models, and lack real-world relevance.
3. Are all CBTs ineffective?
No. Well-designed CBTs in fields like aviation and medicine can be highly effective when tailored to learners’ needs.
4. How are CBTs changing?
Some platforms now integrate AI personalization, interactive scenarios, and user feedback to improve engagement.
5. What can learners do to improve CBT experiences?
Provide constructive feedback, advocate for better design, and suggest alternative learning methods to organizational leaders.
