She got B's and C's in her A levels, then onto the foundation scheme at Oxford when a place popped up at the last minute. Then she got into Oxford from the foundation scheme (much easier than regular application) for classical archaeology, which is one of the least competitive degrees at Oxford (they interview 90% of applicants,
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/und...ing/classical-archaeology-and-ancient-history ).
Then she got into Harvard for a Masters from the Graduate School or Education, which is the least competitive department in Harvard (54% of applicants get offers,
https://www.petersons.com/graduate-...sters-programs-in-education-000_10035777.aspx ). I would guess that because it's so unrelated to her undergraduate degree, she got in mainly off the back of her social media work.
I'm not trying to say that she can't be proud of these things. And the Masters seems to be a really good fit. But I think people often go 'Oh! Oxford AND Harvard! She's so smart!' without realizing that going to a generic Russell Group uni for undergrad and then postgrad is a similar level of competitiveness (if not more so, for postgrad) to the courses she's applied to.