I wonder about the "value of degree" graphs in these articles. I don't think they tell the whole story. In particular, over a person's working life they'll ty

I wonder about the "value of degree" graphs in these articles. I don't think they tell the whole story. In particular, over a person's working life they'll typically increase income by gaining experience and probably jump jobs a few times for a pay raise, particularly early in the career. Consider that college student with a summer job or the waitress putting herself through school; they will be part of the income statistics for "no degree" but clearly the lack of a degree isn't necessarily holding that person back. The fact that they've chosen to go to school rather than work full time hurts their income. If that's not clear, consider two people, one who graduates high school and becomes an electrician, and another who has a part time job and goes to college. They're both included in the high-school graduate category before the student graudates, and the student's income drags the statistic down. Now the student graduates and immediately gets a job with a salary on par with the electrician. Even though they're now making the same amount of money, the statistics show the "no-degree" person is far worse off. It seems there's a significant demographic bias at play here. Arguing that a specific person is likely to benefit financially from getting a degree based on that data seems wrong. And the salary chart doesn't include the opportunity cost of not working during the time it takes to get a degree, or the actual cost in tuition, etc.