If you give your sensor more light than it can handle, shooting in RAW isn't going to save it.
Agreed -
IF you give the sensor more light than it can handle. But the sensor can potentially handle a lot more light than shooting to JPEG would suggest. If you do shoot to raw you have quite a bit of wiggle room for recovery, and several other advantages too.
See the examples of raw recovery in this online album. The album should also demonstrate why you should use +ve exposure compensation for a snow scene, if you want to keep the whites looking white...
http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/Exposure?authkey=Gv1sRgCOui54easIX-LQ
Here is an example from the album with the exposure set at +4 stops, metered from a sunlit white shirt....
Of course, it appears almost entirely blown and, if this had been shot as a JPEG it would be well beyond any hope of recovery. However, here is the same image file with exposure reduced by -1.5 stops in Lightroom....
There is a remarkable amount of detail available to be recovered from the shirt. That's a pretty strong endorsement of raw, especially for those who are not so good at metering accurately.
If the scene contained snow rather than a white shirt the ability to recover blown areas of the scene would be similar. Personally I like to set a manual exposure, spot metering the brightest part of the scene - probably sunlit snow - at +3 stops, which puts the scene at the edge of clipping, and buying me a stop of extra headroom for recovery if I need it.
Another option, if shooting a snow scene in winter sun - set a manual exposure based on the "Sunny 16" guideline for exposures in bright sun, perhaps with slight modification depending on the intensity/angle of the sun. Here's an example of mine, shot with a "Sunny 16" manual exposure. It could not be easier. This was shot at an exposure of Sunny 16 + 1/3, as were ~140 similar photos shot within a 40 minute period...