same constraint whether stated beforehand or afterwards especially as it concerns time
Wrong!
Moreover, the original opening sentence also leaves it unclear as to whether other women may have earned other degrees from Harvard prior to Miss Hodgkinson's earning her "doctor of education" degree. (I didn't originally address this issue.)
Ideally, the sentence should have been broken up, for clarity, thusly:
Aussie girl Lorna Hodgkinson was the first woman to earn a doctoral degree from Harvard University. That was in the year 1922. Her degree was in education.
The fact that it was in the year 1922 rather than in the year 1921 or 1923 is secondary. So is the fact that her doctorate was in education rather than in, say, geology.
FACT: By adding on info AT THE END of a sentence, the writer is giving the impression that these are conditional or restrictive clauses, limiting the meaning - rather than simply incidental pieces of additional information, providing mere background.
Imagine, if you will, the following sentence:
Aussie girl Lorna Hodgkinson was the first woman to earn a doctor of education degree from Harvard University in 1922 while struggling to support herself and her orphaned little brother.
Such a statement would imply that other women may have likewise earned doctorates in education from Harvard - perhaps earlier, perhaps later than Miss Hodgkinson - but that she was the first to do so while simultaneously supporting an orphaned brother.
Breaking this lead sentence up into shorter sentences may seem infelicitous to you, but it avoids falsely presenting additional, incidental facts as though they were important constraints.
Regards,