In the days leading up to the release of the Brown Marriage Pact results, the prospect of algorithmic love surfaced in so many of my conversations. There was a buzz about College Hill that made the excitement palpable: love seemed to drift through the air, tentative, hopeful, sometimes awkward, weaving itself between classes, dining hall dinners and late-night study sessions. But the more I heard about my friends’ anticipation to find out who they’d been paired with, the more I began to question: Does the Brown Marriage Pact offer real romance?
While one might wish to suddenly find themselves in an algorithmically optimal, straight-out-of-the-movies romance, it is the process — the friction, which Marriage Pact does away with, between risk and reward — that ignites the spark of love. The algorithmic senses of compatibility fabricated by the Brown Marriage Pact shouldn’t be the driving forces that empower students to fall in love. Next year, don’t give in to the pressure: Skip Marriage Pact.
The past decade has introduced a surge of online match-making algorithms, exposing our society’s unwillingness to make the first move. Digital platforms have steadily reframed romance as something to be optimized, rather than initiated. Within this broader cultural shift, the Pact, created as a project for an economics course in 2017 by two Stanford students, has made its way into the social lives of 110 schools across the United States. Participants are sent a form containing a series of approximately 50 statements exploring values, lifestyle and personality traits, to which students respond on a scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”
Relying on this kind of on-paper compatibility to find a match is, at best, optimistic. To know whether we have feelings for someone before meeting them ranges from difficult to virtually impossible. We often only discover what we really want through the process of romantic encounters — navigating the vulnerability of catching feelings, facing the risk of rejection while sharing those feelings with one another. The ability to communicate through these positions of sentimental precarity and initiate leaps of faith is what constitutes a worthy partner.
Yet, when assigned to a match through the Brown Marriage Pact, we are told from the start that we will make a great fit. So, we are left simply waiting for this expectation to come to fruition: We cannot be sure the choices we are making are loyal to our actual feelings — or if these choices are mere compromises as we try to fulfill the prophecy of the Pact. In acting blindly to secure these prescribed fates, we deny ourselves the opportunity to meet someone with whom we could build a relationship that reflects genuine connection and authentic chemistry, rather than someone else’s algorithmic design.
While there have been mixed reviews, there are stories of long-lasting relationships born from the Marriage Pact. But very few students are still dating their match one year later. You’d think that with the optimization of the algorithm, the probability would be much higher. I wouldn’t be surprised if I had as good a chance at finding a year-long relationship by randomly asking students out in the Sciences Library basement. At least in the SciLi basement, as you make your move, voice breaking the rhythm of fingers tapping on keyboards and pencils scribbling on notepads, the risk of rejection feels alive — the thrill of real interaction surpassing the way the Marriage Pact treats your love life like a homework problem. The Pact takes the real, interesting, scary, human part that we should all be living for out of the equation: the leap of faith — and, no matter how things turn out, the cool story that it results in.
One major tenet of the Pact that sets it apart from traditional dating apps is its focus on sub-surface preferences and not on physical attraction. This might be because in order to find a relationship that will last, potentially even for marriage as the name implies, one must find a partner with whom they have a personal bond that transcends mere physical attraction. But physical chemistry is not something that can be ignored. A 2021 study of 565 couples suggests that people tend to be more committed in relationships if they perceive their partners to be attractive. The connection between what we consider ‘beautiful’ and ‘good’ is undeniable — hence, how can it not be a crucial part of the match-making process? Most dating apps give users the chance to share what makes them stand out beyond the boundaries of the Pact’s algorithm and allow users to “swipe” and employ some selectivity about their “matches” — and for that, I think the apps deserve some credit.
About 32% of first-year students reported that the Open Curriculum was the greatest factor in their choice to attend Brown. This unique aspect of Brown allows students to pave their own academic path and provides us with a heightened sense of personal initiative. The same nuance and self-direction applies in carving one’s path to love. With classes, clubs, sports and other recreational activities, there are certainly ample opportunities to meet new people on campus — likely more than there will be once we’ve graduated and are off campus. So if there was ever a time to put yourself out there, the time is now.
With the adrenaline of taking risks and the vulnerability of making mistakes, I encourage everyone to take a leap of faith and find a romantic match without the Pact — ask someone out, or even download a dating app. And who knows? A secure landing can be great, but you might even enjoy the fall — for even if you don’t find the love of your life during your time as a Brunonian, you’ll make some memories in the meantime.
Maya Tkachenko can be reached at maya_tkachenko@brown.edu. Please send responses to this column to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
