Random Groups

Random group generator

Split by

Press Draw to see the result

Local · nothing stored between visits

Paste a list of names and pick what to do with it across the top of the panel. Groups splits the list by size or by number of groups, dealing one name at a time so eleven people into groups of four come out four, four and three, never four, four, two and one. Pairs puts people two at a time. Seating fills rows of a fixed width. Bracket draws a single-elimination first round and hands out the byes. Tasks deals a second list — jobs, chores, shifts — out over the names. Every one of them takes the same optional seed, so any draw can be reproduced.

How to make random groups

1 Pick the job across the top of the panel. It opens on groups; the other four are pairs, a seating plan, a knockout bracket and a task rota.
2 Paste the names, one per line.
3 For groups, choose a fixed group size or a fixed number of groups — four per group is the usual default for project work. Seating asks how many seats per row; tasks adds a second box for the jobs.
4 Draw. Draw again if the mix looks wrong; type a seed if you want to be able to reproduce exactly this arrangement later.

For classroom work, fixing the group size is almost always the right mode: the activity is designed for groups of three or four, and the class size changes week to week. Fixing the number of groups suits a room with a set number of tables instead. Random grouping is also doing something specific pedagogically. It breaks up the clusters that form when students pick their own, which is usually the whole reason for grouping them.

The first thing that follows from dealing the names out one at a time instead of slicing the list is that the requested size is a ceiling and not a target: the leftovers are spread across the existing groups and never form a short one at the end, so eleven into groups of four is 4/4/3 and never 4/4/2/1.

The four modes beside it are genuinely different deals rather than the same one relabelled, which is worth knowing because the obvious substitutions each get one detail wrong. Pairs takes people two at a time and folds an odd last person into the pair before, so eleven people give four pairs and one three — where groups of two would leave the eleventh on their own. Seating fills rows of the width you set and keeps the empty seats together at the end of the last row, so the plan reads like a room instead of like a list; groups would scatter the gaps. Bracket pads the field up to the next power of two and hands out the byes, one per match, so eleven entrants make a sixteen-slot draw with five byes over four rounds. The byes go to whoever the shuffle put first, because this is a draw and not a seeding: if the byes should go to the top seeds, assign them yourself. Tasks takes two lists, the people and the jobs, and deals the jobs over the people; six chores among four flatmates comes out 2/2/1/1 and never 3/1/1/1.

What the deal cannot do is remember anything. It has no idea who was paired with whom last week, so avoiding a repeat means redrawing or fixing it by hand, and a rotation that genuinely never repeats needs a round-robin schedule, which is a different kind of thing. It has no opinion either about who should sit at the front or who works badly with whom. Draw again if an arrangement looks wrong; nothing here will argue with you.

What people use it for

  • Splitting a class into project groups of four
  • Pairing people up for partner work without leaving anyone unpartnered
  • Laying out a seating plan in rows of a fixed width
  • Filling tables when a room seats a fixed number per table
  • Drawing a knockout first round with the byes handed out
  • Dealing a chore rota out over a household
  • Assigning shifts or presentation slots to a team
  • Making a draw the losing side can check afterwards from the seed

Questions

Groups, split by size. The activity dictates the group size, and the class size changes week to week.

MDN, Crypto.getRandomValues()
Was this tool any good?
Internal signal only · I use it to find the tools worth rebuilding