I'm going to chime in here since I feel there seems to be some confusion:
First, I must disclaim that I DO NOT live in TN nor do I attend NSL.
Here's some factors to consider.
1) The ABA is basically a monopoly or bears some semblance of a organized union. The "either yer with us or against us" is the golden rule here. This machine has been oiled for quite some time and is difficult to stop. However, most things do not remain stagnant too long. This too will break, perhaps not in our life time, but it will break. Can you imagine the pissed off people if ABA accreditation went the way of the dodo? Law profs seeking tenure who spew legal philosophy pedagogy from their high towers would be forced to practice law somewhere...and this scares them. Long time honored notions of law ivy league schools would female dog and moan and certain politicians' ears would be ringing.
2) Some contend that a legal education from a law night school is subpar from any ABA university law program. This is a myth. If one compares the curriculum between programs you would find that the same core course are there as well as most of the electives. The law taught in an ABA school is not different. An opinion in an ABA school's casebook reads the same at the non-ABA school. In fact the same casebooks/hornbooks are basically used at either school. Con law doesn't change if you go to a non-ABA school, nor do Torts, etc. The workload is not lessened. In some instances it's worse than ABA schools.
3) You will find the courses taught at non-ABA schools are taught by practicing (or retired) lawyers, law clerks, judges, etc. Those who work in the profession and know how the law is applied in real life. You may find those in ABA schools are professors whose knowledge of law is pure academic. If you think it's just a cliche that those who can't practice law teach law...you may want to reconsider. Of course some of this may be generalizing and I'm sure there are the exceptions...but this cannot be ignored either. Most people know that law school does not actually prepare you to practice law in real life; merely a golden ticket to the bar exam. What may be worth mentioning however is one in a non-ABA school may get a more practical education on law. It is not uncommon for non-ABA grads to be able to open a solo practice right out of law school.
4) ABA and non-ABA grads will take the same bar exam in their respective states. This is the equalizer. For those who wish to practice law after law school (yes some do not wish to practice law..they just wanted the JD), law school is your golden ticket there (save for maybe Wisconsin). The bar exam will not care if you are an ABA grad or not. The ABA and non-ABA grad will be able to practice in that state.
5) Yes there are disadvantages to non-ABA. One is the stigma. Another is the inability to immediately practice in a different state. You will have a snowball's chance in hell getting hired into a "big" firm. Is this disasterous? No. You will typically find that that the non-ABA folks are older than a typical law student...working during the day or raising a family, while attending school at night. Law school at night might be someone's only way to make this dream come true. You will also find that most of these individuals are probably not interested in working for a huge law firm, nor wanting to relocate to another state. They may not seek working 80 hours a week to make their bosses rich and knowing that even if they bust their ass they will never "make partner".
In summary, non-ABA may not be the best choice for everyone. This is obvious. However, this should not infer that a non-ABA education is inferior. Some schools choose not to play the ABA game. Some schools can't get ABA status because their law library is missing a few reporters. It's all political BS.
Anyway, that's my three cents (you get an extra cent).