[Goose]

I don't get the feeling the policy will result in compromising academic admissions standards - there's a faculty oversight committee that'll develop/review the standards and the application process will be centralized to help ensure uniformity in admissions - both should help prevent abuses.

IMO the Science, Technology, and Society major belies the idea that "faculty oversight" will generally present "abuses". These "self designed" majors can be rigorous and "substantive". They can also be almost meaningless. Experience has IMO clearly demonstrated that the faculty involved has little to no interest in "policing" these degrees. They are there to teach/do research. They aren't there to tell somebody their desired course of study doesn't measure up to what Stanford expects, because Stanford has made clear those expectations are very flexible. IMO this is arguably abuse, but Stanford doesn't think so. Casper did, but he was "outvoted".
 
Of course the definition of "abuse" is often in the eye of the beholder. There is no reason that the possession of an undergraduate degree  should end the learning process. There are plenty of good reasons to continue taking courses at Stanford that may or may not involve a degree. As an example one may have developed an interest in e.g art history and may want to learn more about it. They may have no desire to make a living in that field. In the distant past Universities were about knowledge, not credentials. It is instructive to look at https://online.stanford.edu/graduate-edu...rtificates. There are certificate programs and you can also just take classes that give you nothing but entries on your transcript. Of course, each unit will cost you over $1500. There isn't really a "program" requirement.
 
The stated intent is that the individuals involved in these classes attend on an "as available" basis. Students that are enrolled in a degree granting program therefore effectively receive priority. If the postbac program preserved this preference, I see no possible way that it could be considered "abuse". It is putting the "excess capacity" of the University to good use. If OTOH it can/does displace grad students admitted to pursue a degree, IMO that is certainly abuse.

[Goose]

I don't get the feeling the policy will result in compromising academic admissions standards - there's a faculty oversight committee that'll develop/review the standards and the application process will be centralized to help ensure uniformity in admissions - both should help prevent abuses.

IMO the Science, Technology, and Society major belies the idea that "faculty oversight" will generally present "abuses". These "self designed" majors can be rigorous and "substantive". They can also be almost meaningless. Experience has IMO clearly demonstrated that the faculty involved has little to no interest in "policing" these degrees. They are there to teach/do research. They aren't there to tell somebody their desired course of study doesn't measure up to what Stanford expects, because Stanford has made clear those expectations are very flexible. IMO this is arguably abuse, but Stanford doesn't think so. Casper did, but he was "outvoted".
 
Of course the definition of "abuse" is often in the eye of the beholder. There is no reason that the possession of an undergraduate degree  should end the learning process. There are plenty of good reasons to continue taking courses at Stanford that may or may not involve a degree. As an example one may have developed an interest in e.g art history and may want to learn more about it. They may have no desire to make a living in that field. In the distant past Universities were about knowledge, not credentials. It is instructive to look at https://online.stanford.edu/graduate-edu...rtificates. There are certificate programs and you can also just take classes that give you nothing but entries on your transcript. Of course, each unit will cost you over $1500. There isn't really a "program" requirement.
 
The stated intent is that the individuals involved in these classes attend on an "as available" basis. Students that are enrolled in a degree granting program therefore effectively receive priority. If the postbac program preserved this preference, I see no possible way that it could be considered "abuse". It is putting the "excess capacity" of the University to good use. If OTOH it can/does displace grad students admitted to pursue a degree, IMO that is certainly abuse.