The jpeg vs. RAW debate is almost like the film vs. digital debate - a properly exposed and processed jpeg file can give you a great print. It's like shooting slide film, you have to get it right at time of capture - post processing (like Photoshop work) will only go so far, more like fine adjustments.

RAW gives you tons of flexibility later, but you'll get only a fraction of the shots onto a memory card and will have to do post processing work later. Capture (taking the picture) is only part of this process. With a lot of shots, it can be very time consuming.

Like the choice between film and digital, I use both for different situations. Each has it's own pros and cons, it just depends on what you need and what you can put up with. Have tricky lighting and need to get good people shots? Shoot RAW. Outside in excellent light and think that you're getting portfolio-grade shots? Probably stick with RAW here too. Shooting in an indoor controlled (lighting) environment? JPEG will be just fine, as long as you use a custom white balance. Outside in "normal" lighting conditions? JPEG again. Don't have time for post process (like newspaper work)? JPEG.

These are my guidelines, and you'll figure out when to use each. But notice I didn't say anything about big prints. Either type of file will work well here - it's how you handle the shooting and post process that's important.