Usually yes, but "underqualified" covers three very different situations, and only one of them is worth your time.

You find a job that looks perfect. The responsibilities excite you, the company is one you've admired for years, and then you reach the requirements list. Five years of experience when you have three. A tool you've never used. A certification you don't hold. The tab closes, and the application never gets sent.

If that sounds familiar, you're in large company. An iHire survey reported by Forbes found that only 26.4 percent of candidates had applied in the previous year for a role where they didn't meet every requirement, which means roughly three in four people were holding back (Forbes, December 2025). A OnePoll survey of 2,000 applicants found that one in four feel underqualified for the roles they want (CareerBuilder).

So is hesitating the wise move, or a costly habit? The evidence points one way for most situations and the opposite way for a few, and knowing which is which is the whole skill.

Why a Job Description Is Not a Pass-or-Fail Exam

Recruiters and career coaches repeat one idea so consistently that it's close to a consensus: most job descriptions are wish lists, not minimum standards. One recruiting firm's August 2026 guidance puts it plainly: there is no universal percentage of requirements you must meet, and if you're missing one or two preferred skills, you should apply (Crawford Thomas Recruiting, August 2026). Another recruiter, quoted by the University of Southern California, describes job descriptions as written for a person who may not exist, and notes that hiring managers can even be put off by someone who matches perfectly, since there's no room for that person to grow (USC Online).

Several sources converge on a rough rule of thumb: meeting around 60 to 70 percent of the requirements puts you in serious contention (DecodeJD; Goodwin Recruiting). It's worth being honest about what that number is: a heuristic offered by recruiters and coaches, not a rule written into any law or measured in a formal study. Treat it as a starting point for your own judgment, not a threshold that guarantees anything.

There's also a structural reason the lists run long. Entry-level postings in particular tend to over-list requirements because employers expect to train new hires (Joblio). In the US, an analysis of more than 95,000 job postings by TalentWorks, reported by SHRM, found that 61 percent of full-time roles aimed at entry-level candidates asked for three or more years of experience (SHRM). If a posting for a junior role demands more experience than a junior could possibly have, the list is clearly aspirational.

The Famous "60 Percent" Statistic, and What It Really Shows

You've probably heard that men apply when they meet 60 percent of the qualifications while women wait until they meet 100 percent. This claim traces back to an internal Hewlett Packard report, popularised by a 2014 Harvard Business Review article by Tara Sophia Mohr (Harvard Business Review, via Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (Australia) copy).

Two caveats are worth knowing. First, no study has replicated the exact HP figures, though later research has found similar gaps: a 2019 LinkedIn Gender Insights report found women were 14 percent less likely than men to apply after viewing a job, even though they were 16 percent more likely to be hired for the jobs they did apply to (Her Campus). Second, Mohr's own informal survey of over a thousand professionals, which she and its summarisers note was not statistically rigorous, suggested the main reason people skipped jobs wasn't low confidence. It was believing the listed qualifications were genuine requirements, and so not wanting to waste their time (3BL Media).

That reframing matters for everyone, whatever your gender. The barrier is often a mistaken belief about how hiring works, and that is fixable with information.

The Other Side: Why Employers Sometimes Wince

To be balanced, applying widely isn't free of cost. A 2021 Toggl industry report found that 39 percent of employers named sifting through a high volume of underqualified candidates as one of their biggest pain points (Welcome to the Jungle). Recruiters also warn that firing off applications to every open role regardless of fit can make a candidate look unfocused (Joblio).

That's the real tension. A sensible stretch application is welcome. A scattergun approach is noise. The difference lies in how you decide.

A Practical Way to Decide: Sort the Requirements First

Before you apply, read the posting and sort every requirement into one of three piles.

Hard requirements. These are non-negotiable: a professional licence, a legally required qualification, a work-permit or location restriction. Recruiters who advise stretching are consistently careful to exclude these. Roles such as doctors, engineers, architects, and nurses require credentials that employers are very unlikely to waive (USC Online). If you're missing a hard requirement, don't apply.

Core requirements. These are the skills the daily work actually depends on, usually the first two or three items listed, or the ones repeated in the responsibilities section. You should meet most of these, or have a credible adjacent version of them.

Wish-list items. "Experience with Tool X preferred," a second language, a nice-to-have certification. If you've used something similar, or can show you learn quickly, these shouldn't stop you.

From there, the pattern most advisers describe looks like this:

  • Apply if you clear every hard requirement and most core requirements, even if wish-list items are missing.
  • Consider a stretch if you're around 50 to 60 percent of the way there but have strong transferable skills and real evidence to show. One recruiter-backed guide suggests being more daring in that range, provided the transferable skills are genuine (Welcome to the Jungle).
  • Skip it if you're missing a hard requirement, meet well under half of the core list, or have none of the relevant skills, even transferable ones.

What the Nigerian Job Market Adds to the Picture

For Nigerian job seekers, the "experience trap" makes this question sharper. Commentators in the Nigerian press have written about adverts for entry-level roles that ask for two to five years of experience, leaving fresh graduates unable to qualify for the very jobs designed to give them their start (TheCable; The Guardian Nigeria).

The picture on live listings is more mixed than the headlines suggest. At the time of writing in October 2026, Jobberman's recruitment category showed most roles asking for around two years of experience, with some asking for one, while its internship and graduate category showed most roles asking for no experience or under a year (Jobberman, recruitment; Jobberman, internship and graduate). In other words, genuine entry points exist, but you'll often be competing against people with a little more experience than the advert says it needs. A fresh-graduate guide from Lagos Jobs makes the useful point that "entry level" doesn't always mean zero experience, and that NYSC service, internships, volunteering, and projects can all count as evidence of ability (Lagos Jobs).

This is exactly where the evidence you present matters more than the label on your CV. If you're building that evidence, our guides on writing a CV that avoids the common rejection mistakes and on completing your job board profile are good places to start.

How to Make a Stretch Application Actually Work

Lead with what you do have. Recruiters advise against spending your application apologising for what's missing. Emphasise the knowledge and experience you already possess that maps onto the role (Crawford Thomas Recruiting).

Bridge the gap with evidence. If the posting wants experience with one tool and you've used a comparable one, say so, and describe a specific result. This echoes the advice in our piece on AI skills employers expect from every candidate: name the real tools, describe the real outcome.

Explain the "why you" in your cover letter. If you're applying without every qualification, be ready to say clearly why you should be considered, in the cover letter and again in the interview (Hospital Recruiting). If you use AI to help draft it, keep the specifics yours, as covered in how applicants are using AI to write resumes and cover letters.

Mirror the posting's language honestly. Applicant tracking systems match keywords, so use the posting's terminology wherever it truthfully describes what you've done. Don't claim skills you don't have. Misrepresentation tends to surface in interviews and reference checks, and the damage lasts longer than a rejection.

Pair the application with a human. Where you can, find a person at the company, a former colleague, or an alumnus, and ask for a short conversation or a referral. A stretch application is far stronger when someone can vouch for your potential.

The Bottom Line

Applying to jobs you're slightly underqualified for is, for most people, smart. The job posting is a description of the ideal, written by someone who knows the ideal rarely exists. What separates a smart stretch from wasted effort is the quality of your judgment: you clear the hard requirements, you meet most of the core ones, you can point to real evidence for the rest, and you apply selectively rather than to everything. Skip the roles where a licence, a legal requirement, or most of the core skills are missing, and put that energy into the ones where your case is strong. A job you "aren't ready for" on paper is often one you could do well, and the only way to find out is to let the employer decide rather than deciding for them.

This article draws on recruiter and career-adviser guidance, survey data from iHire, OnePoll, and Toggl, a 2019 LinkedIn Gender Insights report, and Nigerian job-market commentary and listing data, current as of October 2026. Percentage guidelines are heuristics from practitioners, not legal or statistical standards, and individual employers vary widely. Verify any specific figure against its linked source before relying on it.