I hadn't really thought about it, but now that I think about it, this happens a LOT.
This is actually an argument for getting married later, e.g. 30+, so that both parties can more accurately project the kind of person they've actually married. It is trite and a (good) generalization, but status matters to both men and women in some fashion, and this plays into the marriage calculus. What a person is doing at 20 these days has almost no bearing on what a person will be doing at 30, and hazarding a guess at that age as to marriagability based on this fact may yield unpredictable results.
Heh. I'm sure all those women who dissed me when I was 20 because I was dirt poor and working my ass off at a crappy job would've had a completely different attitude if they met me at 30. I didn't change but my status did dramatically, which completely changed the playing field for me. I define "trophy wife" a bit differently than they probably expect though, and I can't stand status whores.
Of course, living way below my means and projecting myself as someone of modest resources helps keep a lot of the useless wife candidates at bay.
I believe that back in Victorian times, middle-class gentlemen were more likely to marry at around or after 30, to women in their early twenties. Marriage was deferred until the man could support a wife, which meant that men married well-into their careers