Enormous attention is paid to the role that particular elite private--or "Ivy+"--schools play in educating American leaders. But when a wide array of prestigious institutions and employers are studied, it is found that their leaders are more likely to come from public colleges and universities rather than from private schools, from in-state schools rather than out-of-state, and from flagship publics rather than Ivy+ privates. The influence of public universities (especially flagships) and of schools geographically near key U.S. institutions has been greatly underappreciated. Several factors explain the disproportionate attention paid to Ivy+ schools, many of which are a form of affinity bias, which is the proclivity of people to select, side with, and spotlight those like themselves. When scholars, journalists, and organizational leaders are disproportionately Ivy+ graduates and work in geographies and fields with an overrepresentation of Ivy+ graduates, their vision narrows and they develop blind spots. The conversation about higher education and public leadership thus systematically neglects non-Ivy+ schools, institutions led by non-Ivy+ graduates, and individuals who would prefer to go to college and build careers in places that do not have Ivy+ schools or significant numbers of graduates of those schools. To ensure that the country's leadership ranks are accessible to all, people should first stop fixating on Ivy+ schools and simply report fairly on the leadership-development contributions of other schools; second, it should be underscored to employers and the leaders of scholarships and fellowships that high-potential future leaders are found at an array of public and close-to-home schools.