First-generation students arrive at college without a family map for how it works. We suspected that gap showed up as measurable risk — so we designed a study to find out where, when, and how much.
01The question
LaGuardia's first-year retention (60%) trails the national average, and the loss is not evenly distributed. The NEH Health Humanities initiative needed evidence to design a program that would actually hold first-generation students — not assumptions. My role was to build the research that would answer one question: what specifically puts first-gen students at risk, and when?
02The design — a controlled comparison
I framed it as an A/B comparative study. The control group was second-generation students (at least one parent attended college — they carry a family model). The treatment group was first-generation students, navigating without one. Both groups were scored across seven risk dimensions on a 1–10 scale, so differences could be measured rather than described.
03Finding — first-gen students carry 2–3× the strain
Across every dimension, first-generation students scored dramatically higher on risk. Financial stress, mental-health strain, and academic-direction uncertainty were the widest gaps — each a critical difference of five points or more.
04Finding — the dropout cliff is Semester 1
Timing mattered as much as magnitude. First-gen dropout risk peaks at 9.0 in the first semester, then falls steadily as students who survive find their footing. The second-gen line stays flat and low throughout. The implication for program design was unambiguous: intervention has to land early, before the first semester ends.
05Finding — the barriers are compound, and they're material
The student interest survey used a multi-select barrier question by design — single-choice would have undercounted the real, overlapping pressures students face. Work obligations (71%), financial constraints (64%), and unclear career pathways (58%) topped the list for first-gen students, each roughly double the second-gen rate.
06Context — how LaGuardia compares
The student-level gaps sit inside an institutional one. LaGuardia trails national benchmarks on retention and completion — but the CUNY ASAP comparison shows what targeted support does: a 53% outcome against a 24% control, +29 points. Support that's designed around the risk works.
07The qualitative layer — listening before designing
Numbers tell you where; people tell you why. I coded the BRXCRRB community focus-group transcript line by line, extracting four themes that shaped how the program would be built and marketed:
| Theme | Program implication | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| Research ethics & cultural sensitivity | Mandatory cultural review in instrument design | Critical |
| Inclusive outreach & equity | No-exclusion policy in data collection | Critical |
| Active information sharing | Community-embedded marketing strategy | High |
| Community infrastructure | Connect program to existing organizations | Medium |
08The outcome
The evidence base went to LaGuardia leadership and was presented at the SCRA Biennial Conference. The headline result isn't a chart — it's a program: the Health Humanities AA degree is now live in the LaGuardia catalog, designed around findings showing where first-gen students need support and when.
Student interest surveyFocus-group protocolTranscript codingEvidence baseSCRA presentationLaunched degree
Why this is business analysis
The subject was students, but the method is the one a business analyst uses every day: define the question, design the instrument, run a controlled comparison, code the qualitative signal, and hand stakeholders something they can act on. Survey design becomes A/B variable definition; focus-group coding becomes voice-of-customer analysis; the leadership dashboard becomes KPI reporting.
"The challenge changes — students or customers, college or telecom. The work is the same: understand what the audience needs, design the instrument to find out, analyze with rigor, and give the business something it can act on."