Perhaps a description of the situation would be in order:
My MC is defending his candidacy to the National Academy in magic theory. This is kind of a Big Deal in this society, as successful defense grants full Citizenship (which is also a Big Deal) and it is extraordinarily rare for more than one person to be inducted in a year. The defense takes place as something akin to an oral examination by a panel of members of the academy, and can in theory be attended by anyone (and anyone is welcome to query the candidate). The defense takes something on the order of six hours, during which the candidate fields questions from the examiners on a variety of topics both related and unrelated to the candidate's field of expertise.

The important events that I want to occur in this chapter:

1. The examiners arrive, and there is some conflict over the unusual circumstances of the defense. One of them helped orchestrate the exam coming together very quickly, and one (hereafter known as "the skeptic") is upset at being dragged into it.
2. The MC and MC_2 (supporting/kind-of-also-main character arrives with him), but MC_2 surprises MC by inviting MC's sister, a major act of support to the MC (she had been in hiding from everyone prior to this moment, and had vowed never again to speak with MC).
3. Exam begins with a display by MC that amazes the skeptical examiner, involving a magical talent that MC can do that would be near-impossible for anyone else.
4. Lots of very difficult questions are asked, MC does his best to answer them, finds this the difficult part of the defense. I don't want to go into extreme detail here. This takes about 3 to 4 hours, so obviously we don't follow it all. "For three hours, Grayson fended off question after question about theory he hadn't studied for years - from hyper-manifold figure tactics to the influence of the ancient Gaulish language on Valanian magical techniques in the first century P.E."
5. MC is required to demonstrate original research or innovation, at which point he shows off a few cool inventions (related to magic), which appropriately blow away the examiners (particularly the skeptic).
6. The panel discusses the defense and (spoiler!) the MC passes, with even the skeptic coming around to vote yes.
   

Though it may be hard to believe, they are all actually important events and (I think) all exciting to read. It would feel horrible to me to separate any of them into another chapter, as it would mean breaking up a set of events that are very tightly bound in location and time. If anything could be broken off, the first item is the best candidate, but that would break one of the plot points that the "skeptic" examiner literally finds out about the exam the night before (and is f-ing furious about it), and only agrees to come because he owes a favor to one of the other examiners.

The issue is keeping the reader engaged. You need to continually build the tension and write the episode so that the reader becomes immersed in the session. If you can't do that, then you might consider breaking it up, but a reader will expect some kind of an arc in each chapter.

What I see with what's presented above is that it illustrates a character's self-efficacy, but not so much about what's at the core of the scene. Some private stakes, some small public stakes, but not a lot about how it connects and how it is in unity with the larger story. I don't especially see how the story outcome increases in doubt, what details the characters will learn from the defense that will lead to the outcome, nor the forces of antagonism in opposition increasing to lead into the climax, the three features I think are essential when a climax approaches.

A very similar scene is depicted in Thomas Harris' Hannibal. Hannibal Lecter as Dr. Fell is before a board of eminent culture scholars defending his qualifications for a position as curator of a collection of art and manuscripts. A nepotist skeptic doesn't want him to have the position, let alone permanently.

Lecter's presentation connects directly with his collision of wills with Pazzi, the cop who's decided he will sell Lecter to Verger so that Verger can exact his revenge. The appointment and motivations and challenges for the defense are set up earlier in the novel, revisted a time or two, and then takes place before a climactic scene, not the climax, that flows naturally from the defense into the climactic scene. It's not a long scene in time or word real estate, but it is crucial to the story, provides backstory and moves the story forward at a sharp pace, and is dynamic dramatic action.

quote:

---

What I see with what's presented above is that it illustrates a character's self-efficacy, but not so much about what's at the core of the scene. Some private stakes, some small public stakes, but not a lot about how it connects and how is is in unity with the larger story.

---

I always thought the exam itself was an interesting setting; as done here it is sort of a fusion of that type of exam with a defense of dissertation, though instead of gaining a PhD you gain admittance as something similar to the Fellows of the Royal Society.

Dramatic irony raises potent suspense questions and empathy-worthy potentials. Readers know that a protagonist is approaching opposition before the protagonist. The who, what, when, where, why, and how suspense questions' potentials are manifold.

Edit: My most recent defense wasn't in a face-to-face setting, it was all done online. Application for a travel guide writing position. Writing samples, curriculum vitae, statement of intent, demonstrated knowledge of the region and familiarity with its attractions and with vendors, and other salient information. I passed the first two screenings, provided more information as requested, and placed second out of four finalists for one position. The screener had more affinity for the winner based on subjective criteria, willingness to be socially visited in a home setting. She was a total stranger to me, I offered to meet publicly first, but . . .

I'm reminded of a parlimentary tactic to pass a contentious act by abruptly calling a bill out of secret committee discussion, giving little formal advance notice of the pending vote, giving favorable legislators timely informal advance notice, and polling the vote in the middle of the night. The straw man is often a freshman or junior legislator with little political equity and constituent backing bucking for caucus and constituent recognition by toeing the party platform, in other words, expendable.

It could perhaps be the case that a faction of the Academy objects to the fast-tracking of the examination, and the only way the supporting examiner can win approval for the exam is to have that faction have one of their own as an examiner. In that case, though, it might seem almost just to have the skeptic somewhat humiliated by the protagonist -- I was planning on the skeptic being surprised, but still a determined (and worthy) adversary of the MC's admittance.