I am interested in any ratio people have noticed either in college or work experience. What is the general ratio between reading and writing for example for a particular research report. For every three hours you read is there one hour of writing you are able to gleen from what you have read?
Depends on what you do, the purpose for which you're writing, and how well you know what you're talking about. As you learn more, it takes less research to get your bearings and make your point.
I'm an attorney. I don't write many "research reports" anymore. For the most part, I write more than I research. For the occasional wild-goose-chase motion or brief, I'll have to research longer than I write -- but that doesn't happen all that often. Writing is production. Research is overhead. I try to reduce the latter as much as I can.
I imagine a history writer, for instance, might answer differently.
I work with lots of different types of data and I practically never write anything like a paper one does in school. I do have to do "research" sometimes like when I had to understand geodetics and how a datum and projections work together. My end product is information supplied to the correct individuals that is loaded into a program or all summed up in a spreadsheet.
In college I think it was a 1:1 as I was in the physics program where the research papers were more based on the experiments performed as were the research papers I wrote for my assistantship. In most of my other classes it was more heavily weighted towards reading during my undergraduate but for the MBA it was more time spent writing than reading.
For my current position It is more writing than reading.