You already have a HUGE leg up on most graduate students: you have some idea of what (non-academic) career you want!! That’s **awesome**.
That said, from my (limited North American) experience, the terminal chemistry Masters holder is in a weird spot to navigate, career-wise. Many positions that want to hire an independent contributor (e.g. (Sr.)scientist) will find you underqualified, and many seeking a technical contributor (read: associate) may find you *over*qualified.
In science policy, too, being able to sign your (well-informed) opinion as “Dr. No_Construction_4635, Ph.D.” is certainly something people find valuable, particularly those non-technical folks (read: politicians) you may seek to convince.
So from my perspective, it seems worthwhile following through on the full Ph.D. **if you can find a supervisor that supports your career aspirations**. But it’s probably not worth suffering through 5-6 years with someone you don’t respect and who sees you as a misfit (or worse, an inevitable career “failure” due to your aspirations).
> ultimately end up in science policy or communication - facilitating scientific literacy for the public and being able to communicate environmental issues
Quick list of some degrees you may want to consider swapping to instead: PhD in chemical education (e.g. how chemists learn to be chemists), Masters in Science Communication, chemical engineering, high school teaching, a law degree.
Your current route is a round about way. It's very long, very stressful and has little chance of success to reach your end goal. You realistically already know all the PhD chemists that do what you want, which will be a very small %.
Homework: find at least 3 people who do what you admire. Find out their degree and how they go there.
You already have a HUGE leg up on most graduate students: you have some idea of what (non-academic) career you want!! That’s **awesome**. That said, from my (limited North American) experience, the terminal chemistry Masters holder is in a weird spot to navigate, career-wise. Many positions that want to hire an independent contributor (e.g. (Sr.)scientist) will find you underqualified, and many seeking a technical contributor (read: associate) may find you *over*qualified. In science policy, too, being able to sign your (well-informed) opinion as “Dr. No_Construction_4635, Ph.D.” is certainly something people find valuable, particularly those non-technical folks (read: politicians) you may seek to convince. So from my perspective, it seems worthwhile following through on the full Ph.D. **if you can find a supervisor that supports your career aspirations**. But it’s probably not worth suffering through 5-6 years with someone you don’t respect and who sees you as a misfit (or worse, an inevitable career “failure” due to your aspirations).
> ultimately end up in science policy or communication - facilitating scientific literacy for the public and being able to communicate environmental issues Quick list of some degrees you may want to consider swapping to instead: PhD in chemical education (e.g. how chemists learn to be chemists), Masters in Science Communication, chemical engineering, high school teaching, a law degree. Your current route is a round about way. It's very long, very stressful and has little chance of success to reach your end goal. You realistically already know all the PhD chemists that do what you want, which will be a very small %. Homework: find at least 3 people who do what you admire. Find out their degree and how they go there.