Combinatorics: The Rota Way is too advanced for undergraduates, but could be used as the basis for one or more graduate-level mathematics courses. However, even as a practicing mathematician in combinatorics, reviewer
Jennifer Quinn found the book difficult going, despite the many topics of interest to her that it covered. She writes that she found herself "unsatisfied as a reader", "bogged down in technical details", and missing a unified picture of combinatorics as Rota saw it, even though a unified picture of combinatorics was exactly what Rota often pushed for in his own research. Quinn nevertheless commends the book as "a fine reference" for some beautiful mathematics. Like Quinn, John Mount complains that parts of the book are unmotivated and lacking in examples and applications, "like a compressed
Bourbaki treatment of discrete mathematics". He also writes that some of the exercises, such as one asking for a reproof of the
Robertson–Seymour theorem on
graph minors (without a guide to its original proof, which extended over a series of approximately 20 papers) are "needlessly cruel". However, he recommends
Combinatorics: The Rota Way to students and researchers who have already seen the topics it presents, as a second source "for an alternate and powerful treatment of the topic". Alessandro Di Bucchianico also writes that he is "not entirely positive" about the book, complaining about its "endless rows of definitions, statements, and proofs" without a connecting thread or motivation. He concludes that, although it is a good book for finding a clear description of Rota's favorite pieces of mathematics and their proofs, it is missing the enthusiasm and sense of unity that Rota himself brought to the subject. On the other hand, Michael Berg reviews the book more positively, calling its writing "crisp and elegant", its exercises deep, "important and fascinating", its historical asides "fun", and the overall book "simply too good to pass up". ==References==