You are welcome to answer questions posted in the Ask a Teacher forum as long as your suggestions, help, and advice reflect a good understanding of the English language. If you are not a teacher, you will need to state that clearly at the top of your post. Please note, all posts are moderated by our in-house language experts, so make sure your suggestions, help, and advice house the kind of information an international language teacher would offer. If not, and your posts do not contribute to the topic in a positive way, they will be subject to deletion.
If you're proficient at something, you can do it perfectly. If you work in IT, you can say that you're proficient in word processors even if you don't type as fast as an assistant (these are 2 separate set of skills, right?). However, if you're an assistant, people expect you to type at a decent pace.
If you know every function, then you should be able to correct your typing, shouldn't you? I don't honestly think that the expert who produces shoddy work could be regarded as proficient.
I may not be proficient in typing, another skill set, but still very proficient in using the word processing program. I don't follow you conclusion that my poor typing skills would produce shoddy work. My proficient use of the word processor's spell check would take care of any mis-spellings, but speed may still be a problem. Anyway. I think you have introduced another dimension, quality, and did not address the question: Can I be proficient in a skill and not necessarily be efficient?
It all depends on what he/she is asked, but he/she could not claim proficiency in word processors anyway -- though he/she might be a first-class assistant.
Proficiency vs Efficiency 
Linear Mode
