As it seems you are happy for us to be frank and candid, I will confess I am unabashedly pro-LAC. While I’m not anti-university (one of my kids attended a university), I feel strongly that those who know, know why an LAC is a superior choice. Especially for highly regarded LACs, such as the ones you mention. And Bates. Because Bates is awesome. (Note my avatar.)
There are a lot of great LACs and the best ones (mostly Bates 
) have: engaged, collaborative, friendly students; many diverse organizations and clubs; campus events that encourage students to remain on campus, rather than seek entertainment off campus…but also opportunities to get off campus for a variety of activities; small classes with close student and professor interaction; community engagement; strong alumni networks with active alumni; proactive career centers; ease in securing research and internship opportunities; strong reputations with employers and grad schools; and probably a lot more that I haven’t mentioned.
To be clear, you can get those things at universities too, but it typically isn’t as accessible at universities, and students might have to hustle more to take advantage of those offerings. It is common for professors to seek the LAC experience for their own kids. Kids at LACs develop great cognitive skills and can learn more deeply about various subjects.
Regarding the three colleges you specifically mentioned, My thought is that Swat is regarded as quite intense, Pomona benefits from the Claremont Consortium, and Reed is very intellectual. People who matter know those colleges. Any graduate of those colleges can easily perform as well as any graduate of MIT or Stanford.
If you are interested, feel free to read a few posts about my own kid’s experience of attending an LAC: this one, and this one.