[PommeDeTerre]

If that misconception is the "only one thing" you know about getting a certification, then why do you feel it appropriate to comment on the process?

You don't need to buy the books in order to pass the certification exams. Experience is often far more useful. A list of topics covered by the exam is often provided, too. So somebody with experience can often easily supplement their existing knowledge by reading some online articles or documentation, without ever looking at one of the official books.

And one of the core aspects of certifications is that they usually very specifically target a given product or topic. This is one of the things that differentiates them from college degrees and other ways of suggesting qualification. A certification can help an employer gauge a candidate's abilities in a far more specific manner than a Comp. Sci. degree can, for example.

Certification may not always have the value or reliability that it's claimed to have, but let's not misrepresent it or its process out of ignorance, either.

[basicallydan]

Fair points, perhaps I was a little rash. The reason I feel urked by the idea is that it seems to me that it would lead to a greater lock-in of technologies and products that a business can use. More investment would need to be made in order to support a technology or product and thus would make it harder to switch to something else if requirements changed. I can see the use of having certifications for hiring as well as credibility to clients, but I feel that there's probably a fair amount of danger in this too.

As for the books, that was an off-hand comment, half to illustrate that I am, in fact, not experienced with the world of Microsoft Certifications, and so whatever I say should be taken as comment from a layman :)