I know a little about this, but not enough. I'm not a very good film critic or analyst, so I need help with this!

If you aren't very good at this, why are you taking a course in it? Hoping it would be easy?
I can't stand professors who ask a question with an assumed premise. I don't think Psycho was designed to compete with TV at all. Hitchcock was already very successful in television by then, and having been a teen during those years, I considered his TV show just about the best thing there was. There wasn't even much else to watch.
Your professor probably would give me a D, so do what you want with my remarks.

Can't give Joy a +1 but I agree completely.

I'm big into films...I see things in film that most people I watch them with don't get. I see things in the story line as foreshadowing...I see things in the overall picture that have symbolism and meaning....I even debated over the film Legion for an hour with someone....

But for the life of me, I can't see Psycho as having anything to do with trying to compete with television. Hitchcock had a popular TV show already so the only thing I could see with Psycho against TV is that he was allowed to get away with a little more than he could have had Psycho just been a made for TV film or on his show. Was that competing? I hardly see it that way. I see it as an artists expression in a different media.

I've seen Psycho many times and totally agree with joypulv and odinn7. Hitchcock didn't need to make a movie to compete with television. He was already there -- and very popular -- in both of those media.