I can't say I think much of James K. Glassman. Here he says,

mutual funds do no better than monkeys throwing darts at the stock pages (in the immortal metaphor of Princeton economist Burton G. Malkiel). But what is truly remarkable is that hundreds of funds do worse than the rules of chance would seem to allow.

But in the same article, he still pushes managed funds. And here again:

Put together an intelligent diversified portfolio, and, chances are, it will come close to performing the way that the market averages do. As a result, the argument for putting your money into a low-cost index fund is a powerful one. After fees, about two-thirds of managed U.S.-stock mutual funds failed to beat the S&P over the past 10 years. Part of the reason, as I pointed out last week, is that many fund managers trade too much and make poor choices; the other part is the fees themselves.
I haven't completely given up on managed -- that is, human-run, as opposed to computer-run, mutual funds. I still think a few gifted managers can beat the market with consistency. But how much time and effort should a small investor expend in trying to ferret out such geniuses? And, since past performance is no guarantee of future success, is there even a rational way to find them?

Sheesh. Buy an index fund! He's got a link to a fund cost calculator, though.