How does big-little matching work?

Bigs and littles each submit a ranked list of their top choices. The system scores every possible pairing by how much interest both sides expressed in each other, excludes any pair marked as a conflict, and produces the set of matches with the strongest overall fit across the class. Execs review and adjust everything before the reveal.

Big-little week is the highest-stakes social process a chapter runs, and it is usually decided in a room at midnight with a whiteboard, a lot of lobbying, and one exec trying to remember who said what. The goal of running it as a structured match is not to take the decision away from the exec board. It is to make sure the board is arguing about the ten pairs that are genuinely close instead of reconstructing everyone's preferences from memory.

Step one: both sides rank

Every eligible big submits a ranked list of littles they want, and every little submits a ranked list of bigs. Both lists are private. Neither side sees the other's, and members cannot see each other's, which is the part that makes the process work. When rankings are collected out loud in a room, people rank strategically based on who they think wants them. When rankings are private, people rank honestly.

Each person ranks up to five choices, and only the first is required. Rankings are short on purpose, a top few rather than a full ordering of the class. Asking a pledge to rank 60 bigs produces noise after the first handful of names, and the tail of a long list carries almost no real preference.

A chapter can also choose an opt-in pool of bigs. In that mode only members who submit a ranking can be matched with a little, so nobody is handed one by default. If a little picks someone who is not in the pool, that pick counts for nothing.

Step two: mutual interest is scored

Each possible pairing gets a score built from both directions. A big's first choice is worth 5 points, the second 4, then 3, 2, and 1 for the fifth, and no ranking is worth nothing. The same is true from the little's side, and the two are added together.

The consequence is that a pair where both people ranked each other first scores 10, the maximum, while a pair where only one side expressed interest can score at most 5. Two people who each ranked the other add up, which is the whole point: a big who is thrilled and a little who is indifferent is a worse outcome than two people who both chose each other.

A mutual first choice is also held by default. When a big and a little each put the other first, that pair is set before the rest of the class is matched, so it cannot be traded away to improve someone else's result. A chapter can turn this off.

Step three: conflicts are excluded

Execs can mark specific big-little pairs as conflicts before matching runs. Those pairs are removed from consideration entirely, not merely penalized, so no combination of rankings can produce them.

This exists because chapters have context the rankings cannot capture. Roommate situations that went badly, siblings, people who dated, a member on probation, a standards board matter that has not closed. Handling those as hard exclusions up front is much cleaner than trying to unwind them after a list is produced and people have already seen it.

Step four: the whole class is matched together

Matching solves for the class, not for one person at a time. Assigning the best available big to the first little on the list, then the best remaining to the second, and so on, produces a result that is excellent at the top and steadily worse toward the bottom. Solving across everyone at once trades a small amount of quality at the top for a large gain further down, so the outcome is good for the class rather than good for whoever happened to be processed first.

Where the two approaches disagree, it is usually a case where breaking up one very strong pair unlocks two good pairs that were otherwise impossible. A held mutual first choice is the one pair that is never broken up this way, and when holding it changed other matches the report says so, so the board can look at exactly those cases.

Twins are possible only when the chapter turns them on, and only for a big who said they are open to it. No big ever gets more than two littles. On a tie a single match wins, so a little goes to a big who has no little yet before anyone gets a second, and no little is left unmatched while an open twin slot is free.

If there are still more littles than places, the extra littles are not forced into a pairing. They come back flagged for manual assignment, so execs can place them deliberately.

Step five: execs review before the reveal

Nothing is final when matching finishes. Every pairing arrives with an explanation of why it was made, including how each side ranked the other, whether it was a mutual choice, and whether it was held or is a twin, and the exec board sees a summary of how many mutual first choices came out, how many pairs need manual attention, and which ones are confirmed.

From there the board can reassign anyone. The intended workflow is that execs accept the large majority of pairings without discussion, spend their time on the handful that are genuinely close, and reveal a list they can stand behind, rather than spending three hours relitigating pairs nobody disputed.

Why run it this way at all

Two reasons that matter after the reveal. First, private rankings mean the result reflects what people actually wanted, not what they were willing to say in front of the room. Second, when someone is unhappy with their match, the board has a real answer about how it was decided, which is a different conversation from admitting the whiteboard ran out of space.

Big-little matching is included in every Ghill plan, along with recruitment, chat, events, elections, forms, and points. Pricing is per chapter, per semester.

Open the demo chapter