sakky

First off, I think you invalidated your own answer. Consider your own quotes, which I reprint below:

As an undergrad, I learned how to take a large problem apart into more manageable bits and plan a way to tackle and eventually solve them. I learned discipline, and how well I work under pressure, and how to fit play in around the things I'm required to do. I learned how important it is to stay healthy while putting extreme pressures on myself, and I learned how to deal with many new kinds of people, especially the ones I didn't care for. I learned what I was capable of, how to plumb my creativity and reserves, and how to find meaning in tough situations.

...as long as they've learned some of the important things about themselves and applying what they do know to new situations, I'll think they've been successful

Think about what those quotes mean. They all have to do with increasing one's future career success, right? The ability to solve problems, the ability to work under pressure, the ability to apply what they know to new situations, etc. etc.: these are all skills that are directly applicable to career success. And that is my point: parents are willing to pay because they believe that college - by whatever mechanism - enhances their kid's future career success.

What I am talking about is a situation where colleges did NOT enhance those skills (or at least, where parents don't BELIEVE that those skills are enhanced). In other words, what if you thought that college did NOT improve one's ability to solve problems, to improve one's ability to work under pressure, to work in a disciplined fashion, to apply what you know to new situations. Would you still pay? I think the answer is clearly no.