Well, yes. Good job.
Checking VFR checkpoints and features when flying VFR is important.
It doesn't really have any bearing on flying IFR in an airline environment, however, especially as there's generally no data in the cockpit that would enable making visual recognition of checkpoints.
Perhaps the point is that the 17 year old is getting good training, and that may separate her from another 17 year old who doesn't get good training.
Much like the airline pilot, of course; the airmanship displayed isn't a "beancounter" function, but a combination of the quality of training provided, as well as the dedication and tenacity of the individual in receiving and applying that training. When standardization is applied to training and testing, and everyone has to meet the same standard, and everyone operates according to the same standard, then everyone is...the same.
I suppose a training department could insist that their airline crews recognize and identify each waypoint visually...but probably not. Not really applicable.
Insisting that the crews use standard procedures and operate within known tolerances, and apply coordination, decision making, and safety of flight policies, procedures, and skills the same, goes a long way toward ensuring that a crew operates in harmony and safely. While identifying the intersection of a powerline and a river may not have much application, tuning and identifying a course or approach facility certainly does (where the aircraft will allow it, of course).
In an environment where many operators insist that their crews fly automated most of the time, this doesn't leave much variance for personal technique or preference. One could say that's a "beancounter" input, in that paying customers want the smoothest ride possible.
The assertion that airlines are intentionally driving down safety or airmanship to save a buck, or that airline safety (or even pilot integrity and professionalism in the cockpit) is a function of "beancounters" edicts, however, is highly misplaced.